Mayfield v. County of Merced et al

Filing 50

ORDER ADOPTING 43 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER GRANTING IN PART 14 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; and ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff Thirty (30) Days to File a First Amended Complaint signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/9/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

ANGELA D. MAYFIELD,
Plaintiff,

6
7
8

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.

Defendants.
/

10

12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(Doc. 43).

COUNTY OF MERCED, et al.,

9

11

Case No. 1:13-cv-1619 LJO-BAM

On January 8, 2014, Defendant the County of Merced (“Defendant”) filed a Motion to
Dismiss.

(Doc. 14).

On March 25, 2014, Defendant’s Motion was referred to United States

Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
(Doc. 25). On June 9, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations
recommending that Defendant’s motion be granted in part and that Plaintiff Angela Mayfield’s
(“Plaintiff”) Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend.

(Doc. 43). These Findings and

Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objection to the Findings
and Recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of the order.
On June 23, 2014, Plaintiff and Defendant filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
Recommendations. (Docs. 44, 45).
Plaintiff’s sole objection argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in denying her the opportunity
to amend her claims alleging the County violated its mandatory duty to provide indigent defense
attorneys with reasonable compensation in a non-discriminatory manner. (Doc. 44 at 2). Plaintiff
urges this Court to hold that Defendant has a statutory duty to provide reasonable compensation for
services rendered by appointed counsel pursuant to California Penal Code section 987.2(a) and in the
alternative allow her the opportunity to cure any defects in her complaint. (Doc. 44).
This Court declines Plaintiff’s request to impose a duty on the County not imposed by statute.
As explained by the Magistrate Judge, all government tort liability must be authorized by statute. Cal.
1

1

Gov. Code § 815; Lopez v. S. Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., 40 Cal. 3d 780, 785 n.2 (1985); Morris v. State

2

of California, 89 Cal. App. 3d 962, 964 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1979). To state a cause of action, every

3

fact essential to the existence of statutory liability must be pleaded with particularity, including the

4

existence of a statutory duty. Susman v. Los Angeles, 269 Cal. App. 2d 803, 808 (Cal. App. 2d Dist.

5

1969); Lopez, 40 Cal. 3d 780, 795. “The facts showing the existence of the claimed duty must be

6

alleged.” Since the duty of a governmental agency can only be created by statute, the statute claimed

7

to establish the duty must be identified. Searcy v. Hemet Unified Sch. Dist., 177 Cal. App. 3d 792, 802

8

(Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1986).

9

mandatory duty on the County to ensure that each appointed attorney is reasonably compensated and

10

Plaintiff’s objections provide no basis for the court to find that Penal Code section 987.2(a) establishes

11

tort liability for the County. This Court finds that the Magistrate Judge did not err in finding that

12

Plaintiff’s governmental tort liability claims were legally deficient and subject to dismissal without

13

leave to amend.

The Magistrate Judge found that section 987.2 does not impose a

14

Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations on the basis that

15

Plaintiff has not established that amendment will cure the defects in Plaintiff’s claims dismissed with

16

leave to amend. The Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations granted the Motion to

17

Dismiss as to certain claims and provided plaintiff leave to amend as to plaintiff’s fourth claim for

18

race and sex discrimination under Title VII, fifth claim for race and sex discrimination under the

19

California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), sixth claim for failure to prevent

20

discrimination under the FEHA, seventh claim for retaliation under Title VII, eighth claim for

21

retaliation under the FEHA, ninth claim for violation of the Equal Pay Act, tenth claim for violation of

22

California Labor Code Section 1197.5, eleventh claim for violation of Section 1983, and twelfth claim

23

for Violation of section 1981.

24

In dismissing Plaintiff’s claims, the Magistrate Judge provided a detailed analysis of each

25

claim. For the causes of action which were legally deficient, the Magistrate Judge recommended the

26

causes of action be dismissed without leave to amend. For the causes of action which were factually

27

deficient, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the causes of action be dismissed with leave to

28

amend. While Defendant’s objections reiterate many of the arguments raised in its motion to dismiss,
2

1

Defendant fails to provide any basis upon which the Court can conclude that the Findings and

2

Recommendations, and more specifically, the recommendation that Plaintiff be given the opportunity

3

to amend some of her claims, was improvidently made. Thus, Defendant’s objections do not warrant

4

rejection of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

5

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 305, this court

6

has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds

7

the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1.

The Findings and Recommendations issued June 9, 2014 are ADOPTED IN

10

FULL;

11

2.

12

follows:

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on January 3, 2014, is GRANTED in part as

13

A.

Plaintiff’s claims 1-3 and 13-15 are DISMISSED without leave to amend;

14

B.

Plaintiff’s claims 4-12 are DISMISSED with leave to amend;

15

3.

16

first amended complaint; and

17

4.

18

Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order within which to file a

This action is referred back to Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe for further

proceedings.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 9, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3