Perez v. Contra Costa County Sheriff Department

Background

Edwin Solorzano Perez, an inmate at Contra Costa County Jail, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that he slipped and fell while cleaning the shower, suffered a slipped disk, and received inadequate diagnosis, treatment, and medication from jail personnel. He also alleged that the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department failed to provide rubber boots to prevent the fall and failed to provide adequate medical care.

The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because it did not allege jail policies that caused the fall or the inadequate medical care. Perez timely filed an amended complaint. A second dismissal order with leave to amend was mistakenly filed, and the court vacated that order.

Screening

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, courts must screen a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from a governmental entity or employee. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally and that a complaint must contain enough facts to state a plausible claim.

The court concluded that, when read liberally, the amended complaint adequately alleged policies that caused unsafe conditions at the jail and inadequate medical care. It therefore found that the amended complaint stated cognizable claims against the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department for violating Perez’s due-process rights.

Order

The court vacated the second dismissal order. It ordered the Clerk to issue a summons and directed the United States Marshal to serve the summons, amended complaint and attachments, and the order on the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department without requiring advance payment of fees. The Department must answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The order also directed the Department to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was issued, unless it informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. Perez’s opposition, if any, would be due 28 days after the motion was filed, and the Department’s reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The order permitted discovery and reminded Perez that he was responsible for prosecuting the case and complying with court deadlines.

The court screened the amended complaint and allowed the claims to proceed; it did not decide the ultimate merits of those claims.