Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06267/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06267-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory J. Ahern
Defendant
Albert E. Rich
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT E. RICH,

Plaintiff,

v.

GREGORY J. AHERN,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-06267-EMC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Docket No. 14

I. INTRODUCTION

Albert E. Rich, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a pro se civil rights complaint 

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983. The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. 

Mr. Rich’s amended complaint is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

II. BACKGROUND

Mr. Rich alleges in his amended complaint that, on May 7, 2018, he was in a vehicle 

accident while in the custody of the Alameda County Sheriff on his way to a court appearance. 

On that day, Mr. Rich allegedly was riding in a jail van that “did not have seatbelts” and was being 

driven by John Doe, an Alameda County Sheriff’s Deputy. Docket No. 14 at 3. Mr. Rich alleges 

that the jail van was travelling at about 35-45 miles per hour, when it “was hit in the back” by 

another car. Id. As a result of the collision, Mr. Rich allegedly hit his head and was thrown 

against the inside of the holding cage in which he was located, causing him headaches and pain in 

his legs and back. Mr. Rich states that he was a pretrial detainee at the time of the accident.

III. DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 

Case 3:18-cv-06267-EMC Document 15 Filed 07/01/19 Page 1 of 5
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 

claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 

seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b). 

Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 

696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. As relevant here, the court only has 

jurisdiction to entertain this action if it raises a federal question, such as a civil rights claim 

asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (There are other federal statutes that grant other bases of federal 

court jurisdiction, but none are applicable to this action.) In simple terms, this action can go 

forward in federal court if a claim is stated under § 1983; if the amended complaint does not state 

a claim under § 1983, but seeks recovery under, e.g., state tort law, the plaintiff should pursue his 

claims in state court. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 

U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

When a pretrial detainee challenges conditions of his confinement, the proper inquiry is 

whether the conditions amount to punishment in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 & n.16 (1979). Jail officials may 

be liable under the Fourteenth Amendment for failure to protect a pretrial detainee from a

substantial risk to his health or safety. To state a claim that an official failed to protect a pretrial 

detainee, a plaintiff must allege facts showing these elements: 

(1) The defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the 

conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (2) Those 

conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious 

harm; (3) The defendant did not take reasonable available measures 

to abate that risk, even though a reasonable officer in the 

circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk 

involved—making the consequences of the defendant's conduct 

obvious; and (4) By not taking such measures, the defendant caused 

the plaintiff's injuries.

Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), cert. denied, 137 

Case 3:18-cv-06267-EMC Document 15 Filed 07/01/19 Page 2 of 5
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

S. Ct. 831 (2017).

No binding case from the Ninth Circuit has addressed whether a deliberate indifference 

claim exists against a guard who has failed to secure an inmate in a seatbelt during transport

particularly in the absence of any fact that would establish a high degree of risk. Cf. Ford v. 

Fletes, 2000 WL 249124, *1 (9th Cir. 2000) (unpublished) (leave to amend should have been 

granted so that plaintiff, who was handcuffed without a seatbelt and landed on his head when he 

fell out of a vehicle without doors, could attempt to allege facts showing deliberate indifference to 

his safety). Numerous other courts have, held that merely being transported in a motor vehicle 

without seatbelts absent other facts establishing an elevated risk, does not rise to the level of a 

constitutional violation. See, e.g., Jabbar v. Fischer, 683 F.3d 54, 56 (2d Cir. 2012) (district court 

properly dismissed action by inmate in shackles in bus without seatbelts who was thrown from his 

seat when bus made a forceful turn; “the failure of prison officials to provide seatbelts to prison 

inmates does not, standing alone, violate the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments.”); see also id. at 

57 (collecting cases); Spencer v. Knapheide Truck Equip. Co., 183 F.3d 902, 906 (8th Cir. 1999) 

(summary judgment properly granted to municipal defendants on Fourteenth Amendment claim by 

pretrial detainee who was forced to ride on a steel bench in a van without seatbelt and eventually 

was thrown forward and suffered paralysis; “we do not think that the Board’s purchase of patrol 

wagons without safety restraints nor its manner of transporting individuals in these wagons . . .

obviously presented a ‘substantial risk of serious harm’”); Carrasquillo v. City of New York, 324 

F. Supp. 2d 428, 437 (S.D. N.Y. 2004) (failure to put seatbelt on inmate “does not, of itself, 

expose an inmate to risks of constitutional dimension’ because the ‘eventuality of an accident is 

not hastened or avoided by whether an inmate is seatbelted’”); Simon v. Clements, 2016 WL 

8729781, *1 (C.D. Cal. 2016)(“The law is clear that inmates who are transported by correctional 

officers do not have a constitutional right to the use of seat belts’).1

When, however, there also are allegations which show a high degree of risk, such as

reckless driving by the operator of the correctional vehicle, a claim might be stated. See, e.g., 

 

1 The Court notes that many modes of public transportation reach relatively comparable speeds, 

but do not have seatbelts.

Case 3:18-cv-06267-EMC Document 15 Filed 07/01/19 Page 3 of 5
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Brown v. Fortner, 518 F.3d 552, 559-60 (8th Cir. 2008) (triable issues precluded summary 

judgment for defendants where plaintiff was shackled and unable to fasten seatbelt, and driver 

drove recklessly and ignored requests by inmate-passengers to slow down before one jail van 

slammed into another jail vehicle); Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 406-09 (5th Cir. 2013) 

(claim stated where inmate not allowed a seatbelt and guard allegedly was “driving the van 

recklessly, darting in and out of traffic at high speeds” and had to “break hard to avoid hitting a 

vehicle,” which caused inmate to be thrown head-first into the side of the holding cage). 

Here, even with liberal construction, the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. The amended complaint, like the original complaint the Court 

earlier determined was deficient, alleges that Mr. Rich was not secured in a seatbelt, but does not 

allege any reckless driving by the operator of the van in which he was riding. Nor does the 

complaint allege any other fact such as, e.g., prior accidents resulting in injury of unbelted 

inmates, showing a high degree of risk sufficient to state a constitutional claim. The amended 

complaint indicates that this was a car accident caused by a third party, not, e.g., by reckless 

driving of the van driver. Merely transporting Mr. Rich in a van without seatbelts does not 

establish that Mr. Rich was “at substantial risk of suffering serious harm,” or that “a reasonable 

officer in the circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk involved.” Castro, 

833 F.3d at 1071. 

This action therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim under § 1983. Dismissal is 

with prejudice as Plaintiff has had a previous opportunity to amend. Dismissal of this action is 

without prejudice to Mr. Rich filing an action in state court if he wishes to pursue state law claims 

for relief, such as a claim for negligence.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-06267-EMC Document 15 Filed 07/01/19 Page 4 of 5
5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IV. CONCLUSION

This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06267-EMC Document 15 Filed 07/01/19 Page 5 of 5