Cooper v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Elijah Cooper, identified as a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City and County of San Francisco and Sheriff Deputy Khorge. Cooper alleged that on June 30, 2023, a San Francisco sheriff’s deputy ordered him to carry a portable telephone upstairs. He alleged that the telephone weighed 200 pounds, that he fell and the telephone landed on him, and that he suffered a leg injury and other physical symptoms. He also alleged that Deputy Khorge failed to call for medical assistance. Cooper sought damages.

Cooper later filed a document containing a grievance and a health authorization. The court construed that filing as supplemental material rather than as a replacement amended complaint.

Screening and legal standards

Because Cooper is a prisoner suing governmental parties, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify claims that are legally sufficient and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also said that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and that the violation was committed by a person acting under state law. The court analyzed Cooper’s allegations under the Eighth Amendment, which protects prisoners from objectively unsafe conditions and from officials’ deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Deliberate indifference requires facts showing that an official knew about a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to address it.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the allegation about carrying a 200-pound item upstairs, if liberally construed, described an objectively unsafe condition. But Cooper did not identify the individual who ordered him to carry the telephone; he identified that person only as a “San Francisco Sheriff deputy.” He also did not allege sufficient facts showing that this individual knew about and disregarded an excessive risk to Cooper’s health or safety.

The court separately concluded that Cooper had not adequately pleaded deliberate indifference by Deputy Khorge. Cooper did not allege facts showing that Khorge was aware of a serious risk of harm if medical assistance was not called and then disregarded that risk.

Cooper also named the City and County of San Francisco without alleging that it committed any wrongdoing. The court explained that a city or county cannot be held responsible merely because one of its employees allegedly acted unlawfully. Cooper would need to allege that an official policy or custom caused the constitutional violation in order to state a claim against the municipality.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the complaint with leave to amend. Cooper was given 28 days from the filing of the order to submit an amended complaint correcting the identified deficiencies. The amended complaint had to use the caption and case number specified in the order and include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint, and claims omitted from it would not continue in the action.

The court further ordered that failure to respond as required would result in dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim, without further notice. The Clerk was directed to provide Cooper with two complaint forms and to correct the docket so that his later filing was labeled “SUPPLEMENT TO COMPLAINT.”