Bailey v. Contra Costa County Jail Medical

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Terry R. Bailey’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint concerning treatment of a rash while incarcerated in Contra Costa County, granting leave to amend. The court held that the named jail medical department was not a cognizable defendant as pleaded and that negligence or medical malpractice did not state an Eighth Amendment claim. The court granted Bailey’s in forma pauperis applications, denied appointed counsel, assessed an initial partial filing fee of $10, and set a 35-day deadline to amend.

Holdings

1. The complaint did not identify a cognizable defendant because it named only Contra Costa County Jail Medical without adequately alleging an unconstitutional policy, practice, or custom, or identifying an individual directly responsible for the alleged injury.
2. Negligence and gross negligence are not actionable under § 1983 in the prison context and do not establish an Eighth Amendment violation.
3. To amend, Bailey must allege facts showing both a serious medical need and a deliberately indifferent response, including that the doctor knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health or safety.
4. Appointment of pro bono counsel was not warranted because Bailey did not show exceptional circumstances and had not stated a cognizable claim or identified a cognizable defendant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint identified a cognizable defendant under § 1983 by naming only Contra Costa County Jail Medical.
2. Whether allegations of negligence or gross negligence in treating a prisoner's rash stated an Eighth Amendment claim under § 1983.
3. What allegations would be required to plead deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
4. Whether appointment of pro bono counsel was warranted.

Disposition

dismissed