Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00331/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00331-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 07cv331 BTM (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY LYNN CAIN

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv331 BTM (WMc)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

[DOC. NO. 14.]

vs.

BILL KOLENDER, BUFFORD SUNICO,

DOES 1-6,

Defendants.

I. 

INTRODUCTION

In this prisoner civil rights case, Gregory Lynn Cain (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). On November 29,

2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint adding the members of

the San Diego County Board of Supervisors (“Board”), specifically Supervisors Pam Slater-Price, Bill

Horn, Greg Cox, Dianne Jacob and Ron Roberts (the “Board”). In his original complaint and in his

proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges a violation of his federal constitutional rights under the

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments when he was spat upon and threatened with bodily injury on two

occasions while being transferred to and from George Bailey Detention Facility. (Complaint at pp. 3-

5(H); Proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) at 4:16-22.) 

Case 3:07-cv-00331-BTM-WMC Document 21 Filed 04/08/08 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 07cv331 BTM (WMc)

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge Barry T.

Moskowitz pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.3 of the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California. After reviewing the motion, proposed first amended complaint,

and the parties’ briefing, for the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion

for Leave to File an Amended Complaint be DENIED for futility .

II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Facts As Alleged In Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

Plaintiff, a civil detainee of the County Sheriff pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act,

alleges on two separate occasions, while traveling on a transport bus to and from the George Bailey

Detention Facility, he was threatened with bodily injury and spat upon. (Complaint at 3.) These

incidents, which occurred on October 4, 2006 and December 1, 2006, heightened Plaintiff’s anxiety

about catching a communicable disease. Id.

Plaintiff was on his way back to the detention facility from court on October 4, 2006 when a

prisoner wearing a blue wristband, who was sitting in a seat across from Plaintiff, “turned his head

toward the plaintiff and said ‘look a black bander.’” When another prisoner asked what a black bander

was, the prisoner wearing the blue wristband answered “‘a sex offender’ . . . turned back toward

Plaintiff and said ‘you f***ing piece of s**t’ . . . and spat on plaintiff.” Id. Plaintiff contends that he

drafted a five-page grievance regarding the incident and turned it in to Floor Deputy Bufford, who

failed to process it. Complaint at 3A-3B. Plaintiff also alleges that he submitted another five-page

grievance regarding the spitting incident to an unidentified deputy, who also failed to process it. Id.

at 3B.

On the evening of December 1, 2006, Plaintiff returned to the George Bailey Detention

Facility on a transport bus. While sitting on the bus, waiting to enter the facility, Plaintiff was spat

on twice by two different passengers on the same transport bus as he. (Complaint at 4.) After

disembarking from the bus, Plaintiff told various deputies, including defendant, Deputy Sunico, that

he wished to speak to a sargeant and make a crime report. Id. at 4A. After Plaintiff showered,

defendants Sgt. Coyne and Deputy Rudell talked to Plaintiff regarding the incident. Defendants

Case 3:07-cv-00331-BTM-WMC Document 21 Filed 04/08/08 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 07cv331 BTM (WMc)

indicated that a grievance, as opposed to a crime report, would be the best way to document the

incident. Id. at 4B. Therefore, Sgt. Coyne and Deputy Rudell did not draft a crime report. Id.

B. Plaintiff’s Proposed First Amended Complaint

The proposed First Amended Complaint alleges the same core facts as alleged in the initial

Complaint. The primary difference between the original complaint and the proposed amended

complaint centers on Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the responsibility of the members of the San

Diego County Board of Supervisors for “the unconstitutional acts and omissions committed against

plaintiff . . . [and] . . . policies, ordinances, regulations, and/or decisions officially adopted or

promulgated by them.” (FAC, 2:10-16.) Specifically, the proposed amended complaint alleges: (1)

the official policies of the Board and Sheriff Kolender subjected Plaintiff to conditions of confinement

that are identical to, similar to or more restrictive than those conditions of confinement in which

criminal penal inmates are held; (2) the Board is charged by law with the care of civil detainees and

are mandated to know the statutory law and constitutional principles that should have controlled their

policies toward plaintiff; (3) as a direct result of the policies of the Board and Kolender, Plaintiff was

physically attacked; (4) the California State administrative regulations are binding on the Board and

Kolender; (5) the Board and Kolender caused injury and damage to Plaintiff by failing to have a

specific policy in place for the safe transport of persons detained under California’s Sexually Violent

Predator’s Act (“SVPA”); (6) the practices of the Board and Kolender in transporting SVPA civil

detainees in the same manner as other inmate was the moving force and causal connection behind

Plaintiff’s constitutional injuries; (7) neither the Board, nor Kolender developed written policies and

procedures to protect plaintiff; (8) neither the Board, nor Kolender use any method that precludes

threats, spitting, and/or physical attacks. (FAC, ¶¶ 72-96.)

III. 

STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party may amend its complaint once “as

a matter of course” before a responsive pleading is served, or at any time within twenty days of service

if it requires no response. “Otherwise a party may amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court

or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.”

Case 3:07-cv-00331-BTM-WMC Document 21 Filed 04/08/08 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 07cv331 BTM (WMc)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a). 

This Court notes that on several occasions, “the Supreme Court has instructed the lower federal

courts to heed carefully the command of Rule 15(a), F[ed]. R. Civ. P., by freely granting leave to

amend when justice so requires.” DCD Programs, LTD. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1995)

(quoting Gabrielson v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 785 F.2d 762, 765 (9th Cir. 1986)) (quoting Howey

v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973)) (citations omitted). 

Courts have commonly used four factors to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to

amend. These factors are bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of

amendment. Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist., 743 F.2d 1310, 1319 (9th Cir. 1984).

A district court may deny leave to amend based on the presence of any of the four factors. Griggs v.

Pace Am. Group, Inc. 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). Moreover, the district court does not err by

denying leave to amend when the amendment would be futile or where the amended complaint would

be subject to dismissal. Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 844 (9th Cir, 1991). 

IV.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint adding the members of the Board of

Supervisors of San Diego County (the “Board”). (Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend, Doc. No.14

at 1:23-28.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s proposed amendment would be futile, and any amended

complaint would be subject to dismissal, because as a matter of law, the Board members are: (1) not

responsible for the administration of County jails, and (2) not charged by law to provide security

guarantees for civil detainees while in the County jails system. (Defs. Opposition, Doc. No. 20 at

3:16-26.)

To succeed in his § 1983 claims against the Board, Plaintiff must allege: (1) he was deprived

of a constitutional right; (2) the county had a policy, or a longstanding custom so persistent and

widespread that it constitutes a permanent and well-settled policy; (3) the policy amounted to

deliberate indifference to plaintiff's constitutional right; and (4) the policy was the “moving force

behind the constitutional violation.” Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996);

Board of the County Commissioners v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 402-04 (1997); Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d

Case 3:07-cv-00331-BTM-WMC Document 21 Filed 04/08/08 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 - 07cv331 BTM (WMc)

911, 918 (9th Cir. 1996). In Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978), the

United States Supreme Court held that “a local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an

injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents. Instead, it is when execution of a government’s

policy or custom . . . inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.”

Id. It is the plaintiff's burden to prove official policy by more than a “bald allegation.” Polk County

v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 326 (1981). 

Moreover, “it is not enough for a § 1983 plaintiff merely to identify conduct properly

attributable to the municipality . . . a plaintiff must show that the municipal action was taken with the

requisite degree of culpability and must demonstrate a causal link between the municipal action and

the deprivation of federal rights.” Brown, 520 U.S. at 398; City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S.

808, 823 (1985) (“At the very least there must be an affirmative link between the policy and the

particular constitutional violation alleged.”). Put another way, “a municipality cannot be held liable

solely because it employs a tortfeasor--, or, in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable on a

respondeat superior theory.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 691; Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S.

115, 121 (1992). To avoid the respondeat superior bar, the plaintiff must allege personal acts by

defendants which have a direct causal connection to the constitutional violation at issue. See Sanders

v. Kennedy, 794 F.2d 478, 483 (9th Cir. 1986). Section 1983 provides for relief only against those

who, through their personal involvement as evidenced by affirmative acts, participation in another’s

affirmative acts, or failure to perform legally required duties, cause the deprivation of the plaintiff’s

constitutionally protected rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Here, Plaintiff alleges the Board is charged by law with the care of civil detainees and contends

the Board’s policies caused the alleged unconstitutional acts and omissions committed against him.

 (FAC, 2:10-16.) However, in Brandt v. Board of Supervisors (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 598, 147 Cal.

Rptr. 468, the California Court of Appeal held that the Board of Supervisors has no direct authority

over county jails. Id. at 601-602. Specifically, in Brandt, the question presented was whether the

county board of supervisors could be held responsible for substandard conditions in the county jail,

without a showing it had failed to appropriate sufficient funds or otherwise refused to pay the costs

for jail operations. The trial court had issued a writ of mandate against both the sheriff and the board

Case 3:07-cv-00331-BTM-WMC Document 21 Filed 04/08/08 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 - 07cv331 BTM (WMc)

of supervisors. Only the board appealed the writ. Id. at 600. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial

court’s ruling which required the board to comply with certain administrative provisions concerning

the number and training of correctional officers in the county jail, finding no substantial evidence

supported the determination that the board had breached its legal duties to provide adequate funding

for jail operations. Id. at 602-603. The court ruled: “Except in rare instances, the board of supervisors

has no direct authority over the jail, and even where direct authority is given, its exercise is made

discretionary by statute. The only clear and present duty enjoined by law upon a board of supervisors

with regard to a county jail is to provide the sheriff with food, clothing, and bedding for prisoners

(Pen.Code § 4015) and to pay as a county charge other expenses incurred in the keeping of prisoners.”

(Gov. Code § 29602.) Id. at 601-602. 

As stated by the California Appellate Court in Brandt, the Board’s “only clear and present

duty” is to provide Sheriff Kolender with food, clothing, bedding and expenses incurred in keeping

prisoners. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations against the Board rest solely on the Board’s

budgetary power to supply the Sheriff with funding for the county jail. There are no allegations that

the Board members directly participated in any of the acts alleged in the First Amended Complaint.

Thus, Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to render personal liability. Moreover, as a matter of law,

the Board has no authority to control the operation of the county jail and is, therefore, not responsible

for the development or implementation of the jail’s transportation polices regarding civil detainees.

See Brandt, 84 Cal. App. 3d at 602 (“We note that the board not only had no duty but also had no right

to control the operation of the jail; a board of supervisors has no legal authority to use its budgetary

power to control employment in or operation of the sheriff’s office.”). Because an amendment to

include the members of the Board of Supervisors of San Diego County would not only be futile, but

would subject the proposed amended complaint to dismissal, IT IS RECOMMENDED the Court

DENY Plaintiff’s motion to file a first amended complaint to add the members of the San Diego

County Board of Supervisors, specifically Supervisors Pam Slater-Price, Bill Horn, Greg Cox, Dianne

Jacob and Ron Roberts .

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-00331-BTM-WMC Document 21 Filed 04/08/08 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 - 07cv331 BTM (WMc)

V.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order

DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to file a first amended complaint.

IT IS ORDERED that no later than May 8, 2008, any party to this action may file written

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the court

and served on all parties no later than May 29, 2008. The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may result in waiver of the right to raise those objections on

appeal of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); see also

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 8, 2008

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:07-cv-00331-BTM-WMC Document 21 Filed 04/08/08 Page 7 of 7