Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05158/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05158-2/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. The sole remaining defendants are the County of San Mateo and the Sheriff of San

Mateo County. 

 2. The operative complaint, which is the one cited in this order, is in fact plaintiff’s second

 amended complaint. 

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

G:\Pro-Se\SJ.RMW\CR.03\Williams158.msj.md

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CHRISTIAN R. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 03-5158 RMW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 39)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging

that the San Mateo Sheriff’s Department and the County of San Mateo mistreated him during

his civil detention in violation of his constitutional rights.1

 Compl. at 1.2 

Defendants move for summary judgment, alleging that there is no genuine issue of

material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defs.’ Mot. for Summ.

*E-FILED - 9/29/08*

Case 5:03-cv-05158-RMW Document 54 Filed 09/29/08 Page 1 of 9
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. The fifth claim stated in the second amended complaint is identical to the first and the

court therefore consolidates the two claims. Likewise, the sixth and ninth claims in the

second amended complaint are sufficiently similar to his fourth claim that the court

consolidates these three claims. 

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

G:\Pro-Se\SJ.RMW\CR.03\Williams158.msj.md 2

J., P. & A. (“MSJ”) at 1. Plaintiff has filed an opposition. 

After a review of the record, the court concludes that plaintiff has not shown evidence

that precludes summary judgment. Accordingly, the court GRANTS defendant’s motion for

summary judgment as to all claims, which, along with the complaint, are hereby

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a sexually-violent predator who was (and remains) civilly-committed after

serving his sentences for convictions of sodomy and oral copulation on minors. MSJ at 2

n.2. Plaintiff’s claims arise from his alleged mistreatment at the hands of his jailors during

three stays during 2000-2001, 2002, and 2004 at the San Mateo County Jail’s Maguire

Correctional Facility. The alleged incidents include lengthy lockdown periods, strip

searches, and the denial of access to visitors, the law library, the telephone, mental health and

medical treatment, and sanitary clothing and food. Order of Service (Docket No. 29) at 4. 

Plaintiff’s specific claims are that the defendants’ policies and their failure to adequately

train their employees resulted in acts that violated his (1) right to equal protection by

subjecting plaintiff to more restrictive and punitive conditions than those experienced by

other civil detainees; (2) Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting him to unreasonable

searches and seizures, including by the use of physical restraints; (3) Eighth Amendment

rights by subjecting him to restrictive and degrading conditions of confinement; (4) right to

due process by violating his right to privacy and private communications with his legal

personnel and by restricting his movements without advance written notice or an opportunity

to be heard; and (5) First Amendment right to exercise his religion.3

 Compl. at 18-23. 

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive

Case 5:03-cv-05158-RMW Document 54 Filed 09/29/08 Page 2 of 9
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. Defendants also contend that they are immune from suit and that plaintiff’s action is

barred by the statute of limitations. MSJ at 10-11. Because the court will dismiss the

action on other grounds, it is not necessary to consider these offered defenses. 

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

G:\Pro-Se\SJ.RMW\CR.03\Williams158.msj.md 3

relief. Id. at 23-26. 

Defendants contend that plaintiff has failed to identify any individuals who were the

perpetrators of the alleged unconstitutional acts. MSJ at 10. Defendants also contend that

plaintiff has not offered evidence that the San Mateo Sheriff’s Office’s policies resulted in

the deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Id. at 9. Furthermore, defendants contend

that whatever the merit of plaintiff’s allegations, “there simply was no feasible alternative

placement for [p]laintiff in the County other than the jail.” Id. at 10. “It is this lack of a

feasible alternative placement, and not a desire to punish, that drives the constitutional SVP

confinement in San Mateo County.”4

 Id. 

Plaintiff filed the instant federal action in 2003 and then filed an amended complaint

in 2004, which the court dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff then filed a second

amended, and now operative, complaint. The court dismissed two claims and issued to

defendants an order to show cause why the cognizable claims should not be granted. 

Defendants filed an answer and a motion for summary judgment, in response to which

plaintiff has filed opposition. 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits

demonstrate that there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Material facts are those

which may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,

248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a

reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.

The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those

portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence of a

Case 5:03-cv-05158-RMW Document 54 Filed 09/29/08 Page 3 of 9
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. In plaintiff’s opposition to the MSJ, he now contends that it was the lack of a policy,

rather than an actual policy, that resulted in the allegedly unconstitutional acts. Pl’s. Opp.

at 3, 5. Though given in the form of an opposition, plaintiff actually seeks to amend his

complaint, an act for which he has not sought or been granted leave. Furthermore,

changing his contentions at this late stage in the proceedings does provide defendants with

sufficient notice to effectively respond to plaintiff’s new contentions. For these reasons,

the court will not consider the new contentions plaintiff raises in his opposition. 

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

G:\Pro-Se\SJ.RMW\CR.03\Williams158.msj.md 4

genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Where

the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, it must affirmatively

demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party. But

on an issue for which the opposing party will have the burden of proof at trial, as is the case

here, the moving party need only point out “that there is an absence of evidence to support

the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325. 

Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond

the pleadings and, by its own affidavits or discovery, “set forth specific facts showing that

there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). The court is only concerned with

disputes over material facts and “factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not

be counted.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). It is not the task of

the court to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact. Keenan v. Allen, 91

F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). The nonmoving party has the burden of identifying, with

reasonable particularity, the evidence that precludes summary judgment. Id. If the

nonmoving party fails to make this showing, “the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” Celotex Corp v. Catrett, 477 U.S. at 323.

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff alleges that defendants created and promulgated policies that resulted in the

unconstitutional acts of deliberate indifference committed by prison staff and officers.5

Compl. at 2, 8. Plaintiff also contends that defendants failed to adequately train their

employees. Id. at 2. 

A prison official is deliberately indifferent under the Eighth Amendment if he knows

Case 5:03-cv-05158-RMW Document 54 Filed 09/29/08 Page 4 of 9
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

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

G:\Pro-Se\SJ.RMW\CR.03\Williams158.msj.md 5

that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to

take reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). To state a

claim under § 1983 for an Eighth Amendment or other constitutional violation, a plaintiff

must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the

United States was violated and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person

acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v.

Alameda County, 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987). To defeat summary judgment,

sweeping conclusory allegations will not suffice; the plaintiff must instead “set forth specific

facts as to each individual defendant’s” actions which violated his or her rights. Leer v.

Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). The requisite causal connection may be

established when an official sets in motion a “series of acts by others which the actor knows

or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict” constitutional harms. Preschooler

II v. Clark Co. Sch. Bd. of Trustees, 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation removed). 

In order to hold the county, the sheriff, and the other supervisors liable under § 1983,

plaintiff must show “(1) that he possessed a constitutional right of which he was deprived;

(2) that the [named defendants] had a policy; (3) that the policy ‘amounts to deliberate

indifference’ to [plaintiff’s] constitutional right; and (4) that the policy is the ‘moving force

behind the constitutional violation.’” Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir.

2006) (citations removed). There also must be a “direct causal link” between the policy or

custom and the injury, and plaintiff must be able to demonstrate that the injury resulted from

a “permanent and well settled practice.” Id., citing McDade v. West, 223 F.3d 1135, 1141

(9th Cir. 2002). A failure to train or supervise can amount to a “policy or custom” sufficient

to impose liability. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389-90 (1989). 

Applying these principles to the instant action, the court concludes that plaintiff has

not provided sufficient evidence of a direct causal link between the officers and staff of San

Mateo County to any possible inadequate training or supervision nor has plaintiff identified

any specific policy that encourages or reflects “deliberate indifference” to plaintiff’s rights. 

Case 5:03-cv-05158-RMW Document 54 Filed 09/29/08 Page 5 of 9
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

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

G:\Pro-Se\SJ.RMW\CR.03\Williams158.msj.md 6

In short, plaintiff has failed to identify evidence that precludes summary judgment. 

Accordingly, the court will grant defendants’ motion for the two following reasons. First,

plaintiff has not shown that the named defendants actually participated in, or were otherwise

responsible for, the alleged acts of retaliation. Rather, he contends that these persons are

liable because they occupy supervisory roles. However, there is no “pure” respondeat

superior liability for section 1983 claims. Preschooler II, 479 F.3d at 1182. Nor has plaintiff

shown that defendants directed, participated in, or even knew of their subordinates’ alleged

acts, which is the only way in which supervisors may be liable for the acts of subordinates

under section 1983. Id. Though he contends that the named defendants’ policies and failure

to supervise resulted in the alleged unconstitutional acts, plaintiff had not shown evidence

that identifies specific policies created by the named defendants or particular instances of a

failure to supervise that causally connect the acts of the named defendants to the staff and

officers who allegedly harmed plaintiff in violation of his constitutional rights. 

Second, even if plaintiff’s had shown a causal connection, plaintiff’s allegations

regarding the underlying acts performed by the officers and staff of San Mateo County Jail

are nearly all conclusory and are without sufficient detailed information, such as specific

dates, times, places, persons. For example, plaintiff asserts in his complaint that “on

numerous occasions [he] was denied adequate medical and mental health services, was

denied an opportunity to see a doctor even after an order was issued by the Superior Court

Judge in his civil procedures.” Compl. at 16. This assertion lacks basic information, such as

dates, times, places, names of actual persons, the date of the court order, what ailments or

injuries plaintiff suffered from and for which he sought treatment. Plaintiff’s other claims –

regarding strip searches, poor food quality, and his lack of access to visitors, the law library,

the telephone, Roman Catholic religious services – also lack specifics such as times, dates,

and names of persons. Rather, he names their supervisors, the sheriff, and San Mateo County

because they allegedly formulate the very policies that resulted, via their subordinates, in the

constitutional deprivations. This is insufficient. 

Case 5:03-cv-05158-RMW Document 54 Filed 09/29/08 Page 6 of 9
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

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

G:\Pro-Se\SJ.RMW\CR.03\Williams158.msj.md 7

In his exhibits, plaintiff does provide some specific details, which are written in a

chronological list of dates, persons, and incidents. As he states in his complaint, “[t]hese

incidents are described in greater detail by [p]laintiff in his attached and incorporated

[d]eclaration with a supporting [c]hronological [e]xhibit.” Compl. at 16. These exhibits,

however, are not sufficient to preclude summary judgment. First, plaintiff does not name the

persons listed in the chronological exhibits as defendants, but only their supervisors. Second,

it is plaintiff’s – not the court’s – obligation to allege specific facts in his complaint that

indicate a triable issue that would preclude summary judgment. Merely appending exhibits

to an undetailed complaint full of conclusory allegations is insufficient. It is not the court’s

duty to pick through plaintiff’s exhibits to find which specific incidents plaintiff regards as

unconstitutional and then to formulate his allegations for him, a process ending in a result

that would be pure guesswork. 

In his complaint, plaintiff does detail two specific incidents that the court will now

address. Regarding the first incident, plaintiff alleges that in January 2001 prison guards

brought an inmate into plaintiff’s cell who had been in a drunken driving accident. Compl. at

12. This inmate “had numerous cuts, bruises and scratches, bandaged at the hospital, but

within days the bandages were falling off due to excessive bleeding.” Id. Plaintiff alleges he

was exposed to this blood, it having got onto common areas, such as the sink and toilet. Id.

Plaintiff’s concern turned to alarm when the inmate told him that he (the inmate) had a

history of “homosexual prostitution.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that prison staff refused to clean

and sanitize the cell, despite plaintiff’s repeated requests and that, as a result of plaintiff’s

exposure, he ended up testing positive for Hepatitis B. Id. While this allegation contains

sufficient factual background for the court to determine what plaintiff is in fact alleging,

plaintiff’s complaint makes it clear that plaintiff is not suing the officers in question, but

rather the officers’ supervisors for an alleged failure to train and for promulgating policies

that result in unconstitutional incidents such as this one. Because plaintiff has failed to

demonstrate that the named defendants are responsible for the offending officers’ conduct,

Case 5:03-cv-05158-RMW Document 54 Filed 09/29/08 Page 7 of 9
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

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

G:\Pro-Se\SJ.RMW\CR.03\Williams158.msj.md 8

the court must grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to these claims. 

Regarding the second incident, plaintiff alleges that in November 2000 prison guards

placed him in a holding cell with criminal inmates, even though plaintiff asked the officer to

place him in another cell. Id. at 16. The eight criminal inmates in the holding cell overheard

someone – plaintiff does not state who – say that plaintiff was a civil detainee who had to be

held separately from criminal inmates. Id. According to plaintiff, one of the eight inmates

attacked plaintiff, who, after the attack, asked the guards to take him for medical treatment,

but they refused. Id. at 17. The guards, according to plaintiff, also refused to document the

incident. Id. Plaintiff asserts that when, on the following day, he asked an unnamed deputy

sergeant to report the incident, the sergeant just smirked at him. When plaintiff asked for the

sergeant’s name, the officer “shoved [p]laintiff’s face into his name badge twice, yelling,

‘There! Did you get the spelling right?” Id. As with the preceding allegation, while this

claim contains sufficient factual background for the court to determine what plaintiff is in

fact alleging, plaintiff’s complaint makes it clear that plaintiff is not suing the officer in

question, but rather their supervisors for an alleged failure to train or by creating and

promulgating policies that resulted in allegedly unconstitutional incidents such as this one. 

Because plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the named defendants are responsible for the

offending officer’s conduct, the court must grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment

as to this claim. Furthermore, because plaintiff has been unable in three petitions to show

that triable issues of fact, the action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

CONCLUSION

The court concludes that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to

all claims. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 39) is

GRANTED. All claims and the complaint are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

The clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment, and close the file. 

Case 5:03-cv-05158-RMW Document 54 Filed 09/29/08 Page 8 of 9
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

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: RONALD M. WHYTE 

United States District Judge

9/29/08

Case 5:03-cv-05158-RMW Document 54 Filed 09/29/08 Page 9 of 9