Belton v. Alameda County Sheriff's Department et al

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
DWIGHT CLAYTON BELTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-cv-00380-JD
ORDER RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 116, 121, 122, 148
Dwight Belton, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging denial of medical care and interference with his legal mail while a pretrial detainee
at Santa Rita Jail in Alameda County. The Court ordered service on the Alameda County Sheriff’s
Office, Alameda County Sheriff Sanchez, Deputy Lopez, and Deputy Ujdur (“County
Defendants”) who filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed an opposition, and the
County Defendants filed a reply.
The Court also ordered service on Dr. Magat and WellPath Healthcare Providers, who
contracted to provide medical care at the jail. These defendants (“Medical Defendants”) filed a
separate motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed an opposition, and the Medical Defendants
filed a reply.
Plaintiff filed his own motion for a summary judgment 1 to which the County Defendants
and the Medical Defendants filed oppositions and plaintiff filed a reply.
The County Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted, the Medical
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted, and plaintiff’s motion for summary
1 Plaintiff submitted nearly a dozen other filings containing arguments in support of his claims for
summary judgment. The Court has reviewed these submissions and considered his arguments.
Case 3:24-cv-00380-JD Document 150 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 13

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
judgement is denied.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff alleged that he suffered from severe lower back pain and bilateral sciatic nerve
damage. Prior to being detained, plaintiff was taking multiple medications, including Gabapentin
for back pain and nerve damage. When plaintiff was originally placed into custody, he did not
receive his medication and was not seen by a medical provider for thirteen days, and he informed
the judge in his criminal case. That judge ordered plaintiff to be seen by a health care provider.
Plaintiff was seen the next day, but the medical provider did not provide Gabapentin, instead
prescribing a different medication. Plaintiff was later prescribed Cymbalta for the nerve damage
and pain. However, Cymbalta did not work, and plaintiff continued to be in pain, but medical
staff did not provide Gabapentin. In addition, plaintiff sought X-rays, an MRI, or other imaging to
determine the extent of his injuries and appropriate medical appliances to move around. Plaintiff
stated that Alameda County Sheriff Sanchez along with WellPath Health Care and Dr. Magat
violated his rights by denying adequate medical care.2
Plaintiff also stated that he submitted this civil rights complaint to Deputy Lopez to be sent
to the Court. It was returned to plaintiff more than one month later by Deputy Ujdur, with a note
stating that more postage was required. Plaintiff says this delayed the commencement of this case.
BACKGROUND
Medical Care
The salient facts are largely undisputed. Plaintiff arrived at Santa Rita Jail on July 26,
2023. Dkt. No. 7 at 1. The jail is operated by the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Dkt. No.
122-2, Joe Decl. ¶ 3. The Sheriff’s Office does not directly provide medical care to detainees,
rather, the Sheriff’s Office contracted with WellPath Healthcare Providers to provide all medical
care at the jail. Id. ¶¶ 4-5. The Sheriff’s Office assisted WellPath in providing medical care but
did not direct or otherwise influence the medical care provided by WellPath. Id. ¶ 6.
2 The Court only reviews claims that were part of the operative complaint. New claims raised for
the first time in plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment or oppositions will not be addressed.
Case 3:24-cv-00380-JD Document 150 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 13

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
On July 27, 2023, plaintiff received an intake and medical evaluation. Dkt. No. 121-8, Ex.
A at 5, 9.3 His main complaint was of sciatic pain. Id. at 501. Plaintiff’s intake form reflected
that that he stated he was taking the following medications: Losartan, Amlodipine, and
Hydrochlorothiazide. Id. at 5. Plaintiff also stated that he was prescribed Gabapentin. Dkt. No. 7
at 4. To address plaintiff’s complaint of sciatic pain, he was provided Tylenol and a muscle rub
ointment on July 27, 2023. Id. at 501.
Plaintiff’s medical records from Highland Hospital reflected that he had been prescribed
Amlodipine, Glipizide, Loratadine, Atorvastatin, Losartan, and Pioglitazone. Id. at 502. A form
that plaintiff was provided at his discharge from Highland Hospital on July 26, 2023, provided a
list of medications he should take and the dosage. Dkt. No. 147-1 at 8. The list included
Gabapentin. Id.
On July 30, 2023, at plaintiff’s request, medical staff reviewed his medications. Dkt. No.
121-8, Ex. A at 501-02. On August 2, 2023, plaintiff was seen by medical staff for reports of leg
pain, and he stated he was receiving all of his medication except for Gabapentin to treat the pain.
Id. at 502.
On August 7, 2023, plaintiff submitted a grievance to jail staff requesting a medical
appointment. Dkt. No. 122-2, Joe Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. A. On August 9, 2023, the California Superior
Court requested documentation of plaintiff’s treatment for sciatica. Dkt. No. 121-8, Ex. A at 502.
Plaintiff was seen by medical staff on August 9, 2023. Id. Plaintiff’s prescription history from
CVS Pharmacy for the period between February 2, 2023, to August 2, 2023, was obtained and did
not reflect any prescription for Gabapentin. Id. at 503. A referral was ordered for plaintiff to be
evaluated for Gabapentin. Id. at 502-03.
On August 10, 2023, plaintiff was prescribed Cymbalta4 for the sciatic pain. Id. at 57-58.
Plaintiff was also approved for part-time wheelchair use. Dkt. No. 122-2, Joe Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. B.
Plaintiff was scheduled for a medical appointment on August 16, 2023, but refused to attend. Id.
3 The Court refers to the Bates-stamped page numbers for this exhibit.
4 In the filings, the parties reference Cymbalta and Duloxetine, which are the same medication.
Dkt. No. 121-1 at 4. Cymbalta is the brand name for Duloxetine. Id.
Case 3:24-cv-00380-JD Document 150 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 13

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
On August 18, 2023, plaintiff submitted a grievance to jail staff requesting different medication.
Id. ¶ 9, Ex. C. Jail staff presented this grievance to medical personnel who responded that plaintiff
was receiving all his medications that were listed on his pharmacy records, and he was receiving
Cymbalta which was an equivalent to Gabapentin. Id. ¶ 10, Ex. D.
On September 2, 2023, medical staff treated plaintiff for complaints of sciatic pain, and he
requested Gabapentin to replace the Cymbalta. Dkt. No. 121-8, Ex. A at 505. On September 12,
2023, plaintiff submitted a grievance to jail staff stating that he wanted to see a doctor and that
medical staff were only providing Cymbalta instead of Gabapentin. Dkt. No. 122-2, Joe Decl. ¶
11, Ex. E. Jail staff determined that this grievance was duplicative of his August 18, 2023,
grievance which sought the same relief. Id. ¶ 12, Ex. F . Plaintiff was again informed that he was
receiving all his medications listed on his pharmacy records and that Cymbalta was equivalent to
Gabapentin. Id. Plaintiff was informed that Gabapentin was not part of the formulary for the jail.
Dkt. No. 36 at 11.
Plaintiff was seen again on September 25, 2023, where medical staff again confirmed that
there was no Gabapentin prescription from plaintiff’s pharmacy. Dkt. No. 121-8, Ex. A at 506.
The Cymbalta dosage was increased. Id. at 75.
On October 28, 2023, plaintiff was seen by medical staff and stated that his medication
was not working and that he had been taking 400mg of Gabapentin prior to his incarceration. Id.
at 506. Medical staff reviewed his records but found no prescription for Gabapentin. Id.
On November 27, 2023, plaintiff submitted a grievance to jail staff, stating that medical
staff were not providing appropriate pain medication or diagnostic imaging. Dkt. No. 122-2, Joe
Decl. ¶ 15, Ex. I. Medical staff responded that Gabapentin was not prescribed to plaintiff prior to
his detention, he was having regular medical appointments, and that his care was consistent with
medical guidelines. Id. ¶ 16, Ex. J. Plaintiff was then seen by medical staff on December 5, 2023,
and his Cymbalta prescription was increased to treat his sciatic pain, and he was encouraged to
gradually increase tolerance to walking and standing per his physical therapy orders. Dkt. No.
121-8, Ex. A at 509.
Case 3:24-cv-00380-JD Document 150 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 13

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
On December 23, 2023, plaintiff submitted a grievance to jail staff stating that he requested
a list of his medications, dosage and side effects, but had not been provided the information. Dkt.
No. 122-2, Joe Decl. ¶ 17, Ex. K. On December 29, 2023, plaintiff was seen by medical staff and
requested the list of his current pain medications and the side effects Id. ¶ 18, Ex. L. At the
appointment, plaintiff also stated, “I was taking Gabapentin on the street, I just wanna know what
other medications I am on.” Dkt. No. 121-8, Ex. A at 510. Plaintiff does not address this issue or
refute if he made the statement.
Plaintiff filed this civil rights case on January 23, 2024. Dkt. No. 1. From January 2024 to
April 2024, plaintiff continued to report back pain, but that the Cymbalta was helping. Dkt. No.
121-8, Ex. A at 511, 514, 515.
Plaintiff was eventually prescribed Gabapentin on April 13, 2024, but continued to report
back pain. Id. at 109, 515-16. Plaintiff received a spinal X-ray on April 15, 2024, that showed a
loss of disc space with degenerative endplate changes and joint hypertrophy but no acute
compression fracture, osseous lesions, or spondylolisthesis. Dkt. No. 36 at 28. The doctor
concluded that there was no acute fracture or dislocation and suggested a follow up CT scan or
MRI if symptoms persist. Id.
Legal Mail
On November 29, 2023, plaintiff provided legal mail, this federal civil rights complaint, to
Deputy Lopez for mailing. Dkt. No. 7 at 6. On January 6, 2024, Deputy Ujdur returned to
plaintiff the envelope with this complaint, because it had not been successfully mailed. Id. There
was a note on the envelope stating that more postage was needed. Id. Plaintiff provided
additional postage and the envelope was mailed. Dkt. No. 122-2, Evans Decl. ¶ 4. The Court
received the complaint on January 23, 2024, and opened this case. Dkt. No. 1.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits show there is
“no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case.
See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is
Case 3:24-cv-00380-JD Document 150 Filed 01/05/26 Page 5 of 13

6
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
genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party. See id.
The Court may grant summary judgment “against a party who fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that
party will bear the burden of proof at trial[,] . . . since a complete failure of proof concerning an
essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.”
See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The moving party bears the initial
burden of identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue
of material fact. Id. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to “go beyond the pleadings
and by [his] own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” See id. at 324
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (amended 2010)).
For purposes of summary judgment, the Court will view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party; if the evidence produced by the moving party conflicts with
evidence produced by the nonmoving party, the Court will assume the truth of the evidence
submitted by the nonmoving party. See Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 1999).
The Court’s function on a summary judgment motion is not to make credibility determinations or
weigh conflicting evidence with respect to a disputed material fact. See T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v.
Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987).
Medical Care
A claim for a violation of a pretrial detainee’s right to adequate medical care arises under
the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment. See Gordon v. County of Orange,
888 F.3d 1118, 1122 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2018). The claim is evaluated under an objective deliberate
indifference standard.
[T]he elements of a pretrial detainee’s medical care claim against an
individual defendant under the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment are: (i) the defendant made an intentional decision with
respect to the conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (ii)
those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering
serious harm; (iii) the defendant did not take reasonable available
measures to abate that risk, even though a reasonable official in the
Case 3:24-cv-00380-JD Document 150 Filed 01/05/26 Page 6 of 13

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
United States
 District Court
Northern District of California
circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk
involved—making the consequences of the defendant's conduct
obvious; and (iv) by not taking such measures, the defendant caused
the plaintiff’s injuries.
Id. at 1125. With regard to the third element, the defendant’s conduct must be objectively
unreasonable – “a test that will necessarily turn[] on the facts and circumstances of each particular
care.” Id. The mere lack of due care by a state official is not enough. See Alexander v. Nguyen,
78F.4th 1140, 1144-46 (9th Cir. 2023) (psychiatrist’s failure to move detainee to different unit
following attack from other detainee did not violate Fourteenth Amendment because psychiatrist
acted reasonably by considering relevant factors and the treatment exceeded accepted professional
standards). The four-part test articulated in Gordon requires the plaintiff to prove more than
negligence, but less than subjective intent – something akin to reckless disregard. Gordon, 888
F.3d at 1125.
Medical Defendants
The Medical Defendants contend that plaintiff failed to show that the treatment provided
was objectively unreasonable in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and that plaintiff was
routinely seen by medical staff and received adequate care. Plaintiff’s opposition and his motion
for summary judgment argue that his rights were violated. However, plaintiff presents only a few
specific arguments and generally disagrees with the decisions made by doctors in treating his pain
and in the medications they provided. He also focusses on several claims that are not part of this
action.
A review of the undisputed facts demonstrates that there was no constitutional violation
with respect to plaintiff’s medical care. The record establishes that plaintiff was regularly seen by
medical staff, who were responsive to his complaints of sciatic pain. Plaintiff was initially
prescribed Tylenol and a muscle rub to address the pain. When that was not effective, he was
prescribed Cymbalta, and the dosage was increased to address plaintiff’s complaints, and he was
instructed to engage in the physical therapy that was provided.
It is undisputed that after many months, plaintiff stated that while he was still in pain, the
Cymbalta was helping. It is also undisputed that plaintiff was eventually prescribed Gabapentin
but continued to report that he was in pain. Plaintiff received a spinal x-ray on April 15, 2024,
Case 3:24-cv-00380-JD Document 150 Filed 01/05/26 Page 7 of 13

8
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
that showed a loss of disc space with degenerative endplate changes and joint hypertrophy but no
acute compression fracture, osseous lesions, or spondylolisthesis. The doctor concluded that there
was no acute fracture or dislocation and suggested a follow up CT scan or MRI if symptoms
persist.
Plaintiff does not dispute these factual allegations. Rather, he says that his pain was not
treated in the way he preferred, namely with Gabapentin. Whether plaintiff had been prescribed
Gabapentin before custody is disputed and unclear. Plaintiff’s pharmacy records indicate that he
was not prescribed Gabapentin for the six months preceding detention. Although discharge
records from Highland Hospital list Gabapentin as a drug plaintiff was taking, he acknowledged
that this was “on the street,” and not a prescription by a healthcare provider. See Dkt. No. 121-8,
Ex. A at 510. Plaintiff does not deny that he made this statement, nor does he address if he was
illegally obtaining the drug.
Overall, plaintiff has not shown that his course of treatment was objectively unreasonable
or put him at risk of suffering serious harm. The Medical Defendants acted reasonably by
considering the circumstances and prescribing Cymbalta and regularly treating plaintiff.
The Medical Defendants filed a declaration by an expert witness who reviewed plaintiff’s
medical history and stated that Cymbalta is commonly used to treat neuropathic and chronic pain.
Dkt. No. 121-2, Traina Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. The expert stated that the use of Cymbalta rather than
Gabapentin to treat plaintiff fully complied with the generally accepted standard of care and there
was no indication in the medical records that plaintiff needed to be prescribed Gabapentin earlier
than it was provided. Id. ¶¶ 6, 11, 14. The expert also noted that it is well-established in the
medical community that Gabapentin is commonly associated with overdose deaths and is known
to be abused and trafficked in correctional settings. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. Plaintiff disagrees with this expert
opinion but does not provide sufficient allegations or evidence to counter it.
Consequently, the record does not establish that the Medical Defendants were objectively
unreasonable with respect to plaintiff’s treatment. Plaintiff may have had his own notions of care,
but that does not gainsay the adequacy of the care he received. Even if the care amounted to
malpractice, which the record here does not at all suggest, plaintiff still cannot establish a
Case 3:24-cv-00380-JD Document 150 Filed 01/05/26 Page 8 of 13

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
United States
 District Court
Northern District of California
constitutional violation. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (“Medical malpractice
does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.”) Nor does a
difference in medical opinion support a Fourteenth Amendment violation. Lozano v. County of
Santa Clara, 2019 WL 6841215, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019) (no constitutional violation due
to difference in medical opinion where doctor provided Tylenol, when other doctors prescribed an
opioid pain reliever), aff’d, 2021 WL 4077000, at *2 (9th Cir. Sep. 8, 2021) (unpublished).
Although plaintiff did not get an x-ray until nine months after his arrival at the jail, the x-
ray did not show any medical treatment that should have been provided earlier. He is not entitled
to relief for this claim that the x-ray was delayed. Plaintiff also alleges that he was not provided
his medications and was not seen by medical personnel for the first thirteen days of his detention.
This assertion is refuted by the record. Plaintiff arrived at the jail on July 26, 2023. It is
undisputed that he was seen by medical staff on July 27, July 30, and August 2, 2023, and was
initially provided pain medication, just not Gabapentin. He also stated to medical staff at this
time, that he was provided all his other medications. This claim is denied.
County Defendants
It is undisputed that the County Defendants were not directly involved in plaintiff’s
medical care. It is also undisputed that when plaintiff submitted grievances regarding his medical
care to jail employees, the grievances were promptly referred to medical staff. Plaintiff presents
no specific allegations against the individual County Defendants regarding his medical care.
These defendants are entitled to summary judgment because they were not involved in plaintiff’s
medical care and even if they were, the Court has already found that plaintiff received appropriate
care and there was no constitutional violation.
To the extent the complaint presents a Monell claim, the County Defendants are entitled to
summary judgment. To prevail on a Monell claim, a plaintiff must show: “(1) that he possessed a
constitutional right of which he or she was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that
this policy amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (4) that the
policy is the moving force behind the constitutional violation.” Oviatt By and Through Waugh v.
Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992). Generally, “a single incident of unconstitutional
Case 3:24-cv-00380-JD Document 150 Filed 01/05/26 Page 9 of 13

10
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
activity is not sufficient to impose liability under Monell.” City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471
U.S. 808, 823-24 (1985). If a plaintiff does not have an argument that the “policies themselves
were unconstitutional,” the plaintiff must “produce evidence creating a triable issue of fact
regarding the existence of an unconstitutional practice or custom.” Gordon v. Orange County, 6
F.4th 961, 974 (9th Cir. 2021) (no custom or practice was shown where the record lacks evidence
of any other event involving similar conduct or constitutional violations).
Even assuming there was a constitutional violation regarding plaintiff’s medical care, the
undisputed evidence demonstrates that there was no policy to deny certain prescriptions or
medical care to detainees. Plaintiff presents a few general allegations that the defendants had a
policy to deny Gabapentin and other medical care. Yet, he provides no support, and no specific
allegations that others were affected. His vague statements are insufficient.
Defendants are also entitled to summary judgment for plaintiff’s claim under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, to the extent any such claim was presented. Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.§ 12101 et seq., provides that “no qualified
individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or
be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to
discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
Plaintiff generally argued in the amended complaint that he was denied medical appliances
and reasonable accommodations. It is undisputed that plaintiff was provided a wheelchair for
part-time use within two weeks of arrival at the jail. Plaintiff does not address how the wheelchair
was insufficient or if he was denied access to any programs or services at the jail. Plaintiff’s
general allegations from the complaint are insufficient to counter the evidence in defendants’
summary judgment motion.
To the extent, plaintiff presented a claim that his medical care violated the Equal
Protection Clause, the County Defendants are entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiff generally
argued that other detainees received pain medication. The County Defendants presented evidence
demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and plaintiff has not meaningfully
challenged their arguments. The County Defendants noted that plaintiff did receive pain
Case 3:24-cv-00380-JD Document 150 Filed 01/05/26 Page 10 of 13

11
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
medication, just not the medication of his choosing, and he did not provide any specific allegations
to support his claim that others did receive their preferred pain medication, if that was indeed his
claim. It is insufficient to state that others were treated differently without providing supporting
information. Summary judgment is granted for this claim.
Legal Mail
Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.
343, 350 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). To establish a claim for any
violation of the right of access to the courts, the prisoner must prove that there was an inadequacy
in the prison’s legal access program that caused him an actual injury. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349-
51. To prove an actual injury, the prisoner must show that the inadequacy in the prison’s program
hindered his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or conditions of
confinement. See id. at 351, 354-55.
The deliberate delay of legal mail which adversely affects legal proceedings presents a
cognizable claim for denial of access to the courts. See Jackson v. Procunier, 789 F.2d 307, 311
(5th Cir. 1986). Isolated incidents of mail interference without any evidence of improper motive
or resulting interference with the right to counsel or access to the courts do not give rise to a
constitutional violation, however. See Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir. 1990).
The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for
civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457
U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The rule of “qualified immunity protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or
those who knowingly violate the law.’” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001) (quoting
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). Defendants can have a reasonable, but mistaken,
belief about the facts or about what the law requires in any given situation. Id. at 205. A court
considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the
deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established such
that it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he
confronted. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). The Court may exercise its
Case 3:24-cv-00380-JD Document 150 Filed 01/05/26 Page 11 of 13

12
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
discretion in deciding which prong to address first, in light of the particular circumstances of each
case. Id.
It is undisputed that plaintiff provided this federal civil rights complaint to defendant
Lopez for mailing on November 29, 2023, and it was returned to plaintiff on January 6, 2024, by
defendant Ujdur with a note stating more postage was required. Plaintiff provided additional
postage, and the complaint was mailed to the Court and the case was opened. Plaintiff argues that
the defendant deputies purposefully held the complaint for several weeks and defendants argue
that the mail was returned for insufficient postage and that they are entitled to qualified immunity.
Even if these defendants were responsible for a purposeful delay in mailing the complaint,
they are entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiff’s claim involves an isolated incident of a delay in
his mail being sent and he suffered no legal injury from the delay. The Court eventually received
the complaint approximately 38 days later and the case was opened. No claims or defendants
were dismissed due to the timing of the filing.
Plaintiff argues that after receiving the complaint, the Court ordered defendants to respond
to the allegations in plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief which led to defendants providing
Gabapentin and referring plaintiff for an X-ray. He contends that his legal injury was from this
delay in providing the medical care. However, the Court received the complaint on January 23,
2024, and the case was assigned to a magistrate judge. Plaintiff did not file his motion for
injunctive relief until March 15, 2024, which resulted in the case being reassigned, and the Court
ordering defendants to respond to the motion.
Even if the delay in processing plaintiff’s legal mail led to a delay in providing the
medication and X-ray, it was plaintiff’s nearly two month wait in filing the motion for injunctive
relief that was the greater time period. Furthermore, plaintiff received regular medical care and
pain medication during this time, the Gabapentin did not fully address the pain when prescribed,
and the X-ray did not show any medical care that should have been provided earlier.
Plaintiff has not shown the deprivation of an actual constitutional right. Pursuant to the
legal standards above, this isolated incident of a delay in sending legal mail, with no legal injury,
fails to state a constitutional violation. See Cardenas v. Lewis, 66 F. Appx 86, 90 (9th Cir. 2003)
Case 3:24-cv-00380-JD Document 150 Filed 01/05/26 Page 12 of 13

13
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
(unpublished) (officer entitled to qualified immunity for opening legal mail outside of presence of
prisoner and delaying delivery).
Plaintiff also filed a third motion to compel regarding this claim. Dkt. No. 148. This
motion seeks the County Defendants involved in the legal mail claim to respond to his second set
of interrogatories. The previous two motion to compel (Dkt. Nos. 67, 77) were denied without
prejudice. In one instance, plaintiff’s discovery requests were confusing and required
clarification. On the other occasion, the motion to compel was cursory and simply asked the
Court to compel the County Defendants to respond to the discovery requests without describing
the discovery requests, the reasons why the responses were inadequate, and why the Court should
compel a response. Plaintiff was advised to address these issues in any amended motion.
The instant amended motion to compel has not cured the deficiencies of the prior motion
and again requests the Court to compel responses without providing any other information. Dkt.
No. 148 at 1-2. The motion is denied for the same reasons as the prior motion . Assuming
plaintiff had provided reasons in support of the motion, it would still be denied. Even if the
County Defendants purposely delayed the legal mail on one isolated occasion, with no legal
injury, they are entitled to qualified immunity. No additional discovery would affect the outcome.
CONCLUSION
1. The Medical Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 121) and the
County Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 122) are granted. Plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 116) is denied.
2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 148) is denied.
3. The Clerk is requested to terminate all pending motions, enter judgment, and close
the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2026
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-00380-JD Document 150 Filed 01/05/26 Page 13 of 13