Swanson v. County of Contra Costa

Background

Jesse Swanson, a pretrial detainee housed at West County Detention Facility, filed this action without a lawyer. On September 29, 2023, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. It dismissed Swanson’s Fourteenth Amendment claim concerning his medical treatment, or lack of treatment, with leave to amend, and dismissed Contra Costa County and the remaining claims with prejudice. Swanson filed a second amended complaint on November 29, 2023. The court stated that a motion to dismiss that complaint was ready for decision, but this order did not decide that motion.

Allegations and Limits on the Court’s Relief

Swanson and his fiancée filed letters alleging that Swanson was not receiving court mail or other mail, could not successfully file grievances about his medical care, and was not allowed to make copies. The court explained that it had jurisdiction only over the parties and claims in this action. It stated that there was currently no operative complaint, that Contra Costa County had been dismissed as a defendant, and that although Contra Costa County medical staff remained defendants, there were currently no claims against them. The court therefore said it could not address Swanson’s requested relief for those allegations. It stated that Swanson could file separate actions for claims about access to mail, access to the courts, or additional inadequate medical treatment outside the allegations in this action.

The Clerk was directed to send Swanson two blank prisoner complaint forms. The court also requested that Contra Costa County jail officials assist him in receiving his mail in a timely manner. The Clerk was directed to send a courtesy copy of the order to Contra Costa County Sheriff David O. Livingston, and the court stated that it would separately send Swanson courtesy copies of two recent orders.

Requests and Rulings

The court construed Swanson’s request for “help” as a request for appointment of counsel. It denied that request because he had not shown exceptional circumstances. The court said that Swanson’s likelihood of success was unclear and that he had been able to obtain assistance articulating his claims without a lawyer. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel in the future if circumstances required it.

The court denied Swanson’s request that future court orders be sent with tracking numbers and signature verification. It explained that the court had served him as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d), which does not require those procedures.

The court denied his request that it call his attorney, Linda Fullerton. It also denied his request for a hearing to summarize his case and discuss the mail and medical-treatment allegations because there was no operative complaint and no pending motion, making the taking of evidence premature. The court denied his request to resubmit the second amended complaint because it had already been successfully filed. It denied his request for assistance with an upcoming competency trial because the court did not have jurisdiction over that proceeding. Finally, it denied his request for either “help” or a trial because it was still determining whether he had plausibly alleged claims and was not yet able to determine whether or when a trial would occur.

Disposition

The order denied the listed requests. It denied the request for counsel without prejudice to possible future appointment, denied the requests for special mailing, a call to Linda Fullerton, and a hearing, and directed the Clerk to send complaint forms and the order to the specified recipients. It also requested jail officials’ assistance with Swanson’s mail. The order did not rule on the merits of the second amended complaint or on the pending motion to dismiss it.