James v. Contra Costa County
- Susan Illston
- 3:22-cv-05939
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In James v. Sabella, Judge Illston denied Sabella’s motion against himself but granted it against Jensen and Does 1–50, dismissing those claims without prejudice.
The ruling allowed the claims against Deputy Joseph Sabella to proceed at this stage, while dismissing without prejudice all claims against Deputy Jensen and the remaining Doe defendants. It affected Carrie James, Perry Williams, and the minor children who asserted claims in the case.
What happened
In Carrie James, et al. v. Joseph Sabella, et al., the plaintiffs alleged that deputies failed to protect Levele Williams, a pretrial detainee who died after an attack and complications from surgery. The parents later named Deputy Joseph Sabella and Deputy Jensen after initially suing unidentified deputies.
The court ruled that Sabella’s addition to the case related back to the original complaint, so the parents’ claims against him were not untimely based on the pleadings. Because Sabella was served within the time allowed after the complaint first named him, the court denied the motion as to him. The court dismissed all claims against Jensen and the remaining unidentified deputies without prejudice because they were not properly served within the required time.
Judge Susan Illston granted in part and denied in part Sabella’s motion to dismiss. The court also scheduled a case management conference for June 21, 2024, and required the parties to file a joint statement.
The detailed version
- James v. Contra Costa County · No. 3:22-cv-05939
- Susan Illston
- June 11, 2024
Background
Carrie James and Perry Williams are the parents of Levele Williams. The opinion states that Levele was a pretrial detainee at the Martinez Detention Facility in September 2020 and died on September 23, 2020, after other detainees attacked him and he experienced complications during surgery. The parents and later-added minor children brought claims alleging that deputies failed to protect Levele in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and interfered with their familial association rights.
The original complaint, filed in October 2022, named unidentified deputy defendants. The fourth amended complaint, filed on February 27, 2024, named Deputy Joseph Sabella and Deputy Jensen for the first time. Sabella moved to dismiss the claims against him as untimely and also sought dismissal of all plaintiffs’ claims against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which concerns timely service of the summons and complaint. The opinion also addresses the claims against Jensen and the unidentified defendants.
Relation Back of the Claims Against Sabella
The parents’ claims against Sabella would be untimely unless the fourth amended complaint’s naming of him related back to the original complaint. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), an amendment may relate back when it arises from the same conduct described in the original pleading and the newly named defendant received timely notice, would not be prejudiced, and knew or should have known that the lawsuit would have been brought against that defendant but for a mistake about the defendant’s identity.
The court stated that California law governs the limitations period for the plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but concluded that the claims did not relate back under California law. The court therefore analyzed federal law. It found no dispute that the claims against Sabella arose from the conduct described in the original complaint. At the hearing, defense counsel conceded that Sabella had constructive notice of the original complaint within the period specified by Rule 4(m). The court also concluded that Sabella knew or should have known that the parents intended to sue him because the original complaint described the conduct of deputies who were on duty during the attack.
The court held that naming Sabella in the fourth amended complaint related back to the original complaint. It therefore concluded that the parents’ claims against Sabella were not untimely as a pleading matter. The court noted that whether those claims may ultimately be untimely could be decided later on a fuller factual record.
Service on Sabella
Sabella was not served within 90 days of the original complaint, but he was served within 90 days after the fourth amended complaint first named him. The court held that the Rule 4(m) service period began when the amended complaint naming Sabella was filed, even though that complaint related back to the original complaint for limitations purposes. The court therefore denied this part of Sabella’s motion.
Claims Against Jensen and the Doe Defendants
The court dismissed all plaintiffs’ claims against Jensen without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 4(m). The plaintiffs asserted that Jensen had been served through substitute service on a County deputy clerk, but County counsel stated that Jensen no longer worked for the County and had not authorized County counsel to accept service for him. The court found that the plaintiffs had notice of the service problem, had not corrected it, and had not shown good cause for extending the service deadline.
The court also dismissed all remaining unidentified Doe defendants without prejudice because the case had been pending since October 2022.
Disposition and Further Proceedings
The court granted in part and denied in part Sabella’s motion to dismiss. It denied the motion as to Sabella, granted it as to Jensen and Does 1–50, and dismissed the claims against Jensen and Does 1–50 without prejudice. The court scheduled a case management conference by video for June 21, 2024, and ordered the parties to file a joint case management conference statement by June 14, 2024.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.