Bennett v. Newsom

Background

David Bennett, who was incarcerated at the Yolo County Jail and proceeding without a lawyer, filed this civil-rights action. The Eastern District of California allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee, dismissed his original complaint with leave to amend, and later transferred the case to the Northern District of California. Bennett’s amended complaint was the operative complaint.

Bennett alleged that, after his release from Atascadero State Hospital on parole in 2018, he participated in mental-health treatment. He alleged that Dr. Johnson sexually harassed him at Evans Lane Behavioral Health; that he was then moved to Life Choices Sober Living Home; and that Community Solutions agreed to pay his rent while he attended mental-health meetings. He alleged that Tiffany Franko complained about Community Solutions’ rent payments, after which he was evicted and became homeless without an alternative treatment program or reasonable accommodation. He named Dr. Johnson, parole officer John Detar, Tiffany Franko, Governor Galvin Newsom, and a “John Doe” defendant from Community Solutions. He did not name the organizations employing the individual defendants as defendants.

Screening and claims

Because Bennett was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental actors, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court dismissed claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim, or sought relief from an immune defendant, while construing Bennett’s self-represented filings liberally.

Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act

The court concluded that Bennett’s allegations of mental illness were sufficient to allege that he had a disability. But he did not adequately explain what services, programs, or activities he was denied, how any defendant discriminated against him because of his disability, or what reasonable accommodations were denied. The complaint alleged no action by Newsom, did not explain what benefit Detar’s conduct denied, did not connect Dr. Johnson’s alleged sexual harassment to a failure to accommodate, and did not allege that Franko or the John Doe defendant failed to accommodate Bennett’s disability.

The court also stated that, if Evans Lane, Life Choices, and Community Solutions were private organizations, Bennett had not provided enough facts to show that they were covered places of public accommodation under Title III of the ADA. The court further explained that Detar and Newsom could not be sued individually under Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. These claims were dismissed with leave to amend.

Constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 allows a claim for violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by someone acting under color of state law, meaning through governmental authority. Bennett referred to the Fourteenth Amendment and to the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment, based on alleged denial of mental-health care.

The court concluded that Bennett was a parolee, not an inmate, when the alleged events occurred. It found persuasive decisions concluding that the Constitution does not provide parolees the same protection against deliberate indifference to medical or mental-health needs that it provides to incarcerated people. The court also found that Bennett had not plausibly alleged that Dr. Johnson, Franko, or the John Doe defendant acted under color of state law. As to Newsom, the complaint relied only on Newsom’s alleged responsibility for the California Department of Corrections and for parolees’ welfare; Section 1983 does not impose liability solely because a person supervises or is responsible for others’ conduct. The constitutional claims were dismissed with leave to amend.

Claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 245 and 246

The court held that the federal criminal statutes Bennett cited are enforceable only by federal prosecutors and do not provide a private cause of action that Bennett could pursue. It dismissed this claim for failure to state a claim capable of judicial determination and did not allow amendment. The conclusion section appears to refer to “§§ 246 and 246,” although the earlier discussion identifies the statutes as §§ 245 and 246.

Breach-of-contract claim

The court treated the contract claim as a state-law claim. It held that the claim was sufficiently related to the federal claims for the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, but that Bennett had not adequately pleaded it. He did not name Community Solutions as a defendant, sufficiently identify the contract’s terms, or explain what Community Solutions did that breached the contract.

The court dismissed the breach-of-contract claim without leave to amend, except that Bennett could attempt to amend to allege a breach-of-contract claim against Community Solutions.

Names, locations, and service

The amended complaint did not identify the John Doe defendant from Community Solutions or provide locations for any defendants. The court directed Bennett, if he filed another amended complaint, to name the John Doe defendant and provide enough location information for the United States Marshal to serve all defendants.

Requests for a guardian ad litem and counsel

The court denied Bennett’s request for a guardian ad litem. It found that his mental-health records and allegations did not show that he lacked the mental capacity to litigate this civil case, and that his filings demonstrated sufficient capacity to present understandable claims. The court also stated that restrictions on legal materials and supplies at the jail concerned access to the courts, not the competency issue addressed by the guardian-ad-litem rule.

The court denied appointment of counsel because civil-rights plaintiffs have no constitutional right to appointed counsel and this case did not present exceptional circumstances. The court asked Yolo County Jail officials to provide Bennett reasonable access to his legal papers, legal research, writing materials, and postage needed to prosecute the case.

Disposition

The amended complaint was dismissed. The claim based on the federal criminal statutes was dismissed without leave to amend. The breach-of-contract claim was dismissed without leave to amend, except that Bennett could attempt to amend a contract claim against Community Solutions. The remaining claims were dismissed with leave to amend. Bennett’s motion for appointment of counsel and request for appointment of a guardian ad litem were denied.

The court ordered Bennett to file a second amended complaint by May 27, 2024. The complaint had to use the required caption and case number, identify any John Doe defendant, and provide sufficient location information for service. The court warned that failure to file a compliant amended complaint could result in dismissal of the case.