McDaniels v. County of San Joaquin

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 3/7/2007 GRANTING 8 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff has fourteen days from the date this Order is signed to file a First Amended Complaint, if she can do so consistent with this Order. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13
14

SYNETTA MCDANIELS,
individually and as
successor-in-interest to
Decedent CELESTINE ALLEN,

v.

16

18

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION
TO DISMISS

Plaintiff,

15

17

CIV. NO. 2:16-2007 WBS DB

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, a
municipal corporation; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.

19
20

----oo0oo----

21
Plaintiff Synetta McDaniels brought this action against

22
23

defendants County of San Joaquin and Doe employees arising from

24

decedent Celestine Allen’s death while incarcerated at San

25

Joaquin County jail.

26

entire Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

27

12(b)(6). (Docket No. 8.)

28

///

Defendants now move to dismiss plaintiff’s

1

1

I.

Factual and Procedural History

2

The decedent allegedly was a diagnosed schizophrenic

3

and recovering cocaine addict incarcerated at San Joaquin County

4

jail.

5

were “aware that Decedent required supervision and/or life saving

6

medical treatment,” but “failed to treat and/or monitor

7

Decedent.”

8

cell in August 2015.

9

(Compl. ¶ 1 (Docket No. 1).)

(Id. ¶ 15.)

Plaintiff alleges defendants

Decedent allegedly was found dead in her

(Id. ¶ 14.)

Plaintiff initiated this action in her individual

10

capacity and as decedent’s successor-in-interest.

11

the following causes of action: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for

12

violation of decedent’s and plaintiff’s constitutional rights;

13

(2) Monell claim under section 1983; (3) wrongful death under

14

California Civil Procedure Code §§ 377.60-61; (4) negligence; (5)

15

and violation of California Government Code § 845.6.

16

II.

17

She alleges

(See id.)

Discussion
On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court

18

must accept the allegations in the complaint as true and draw all

19

reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.

20

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds by

21

Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S.

22

319, 322 (1972).

23

must plead “only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

24

plausible on its face.”

25

544, 570 (2007).

26

‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer

27

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”

28

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Scheuer v.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

“The plausibility standard is not akin to a

“A claim has facial
2

Ashcroft v.

1

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that

2

allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

3

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

4

standard, “a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it

5

strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is

6

improbable.”

7

Id.

Under this

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.

“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of

8

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

9

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (“While

10

legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they

11

must be supported by factual allegations.”).

12

Plaintiff’s first two causes of action are brought

13

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

14

alleges defendants violated her Fourteenth Amendment substantive

15

due process right to familial relationship, companionship, and

16

society with the decedent when defendants were deliberately

17

indifference to decedent’s medical needs.1

18

right to familial association . . . is a fundamental liberty

19

interest protected under the substantive due process clause of

20

the Fourteenth Amendment.”

21

DAD, 2016 WL 6988597, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2016) (citing

22

Rosenbaum v. Washoe County, 663 F.3d 1071, 1079 (9th Cir. 2012)).

23
24

In the first cause of action, plaintiff

(Compl. ¶ 26.)

“The

Motley v. Smith, Civ. No. 1:15-905

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
“guarante[es] more than fair process” and extends to “a

25
26
27
28

1

The Complaint also mentions the First and Fourth
Amendments. However, the Complaint lacks any factual allegation
regarding plaintiff’s free speech or freedom of association
rights and makes no mention of any search, seizure or invasion of
privacy that took place.
3

1

substantive sphere as well, ‘barring certain government actions

2

regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement

3

them.’”

4

“The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual

5

against arbitrary action of government,” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418

6

U.S. 539, 558 (1974), and “only the most egregious official

7

conduct can be said to be ‘arbitrary in the constitutional

8

sense,’” Lewis, 523 U.S. at 846 (quoting Collins v. City of

9

Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 129 (1992)).

County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 844 (1998).

Official conduct

10

rises to this level only if it “shocks the conscience.”

11

“Where actual deliberation is practical, then an [individual]’s

12

‘deliberate indifference’ may suffice to shock the conscience.”

13

Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010).

14

Id.

The Complaint alleges that defendants were deliberately

15

indifferent when they “had been aware that Decedent required

16

supervision and/or life saving medical treatment” but “failed to

17

treat and/or monitor Decedent.”

18

further alleges that defendants “subjected Plaintiff to their

19

wrongful conduct” and decedent’s death “was the consequence of

20

defendants’ reckless indifference for Decedent’s serious medical

21

needs and wellbeing [sic].”

22

contains no factual allegations regarding any wrongful conduct or

23

deliberation by an individual actor, the decedent’s “serious

24

medical needs,” the circumstances surrounding why the decedent

25

needed “supervision and/or life saving medical treatment,” or

26

defendants’ awareness that the decedent was in need of life-

27

saving medical treatment.

28

conclusions and conclusory statements, which are insufficient to

(Compl. ¶ 15.)

(Id. ¶¶ 16, 27.)

The Complaint

The Complaint

Plaintiff relies solely on legal

4

1

survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

2

U.S. at 678-79.

3

See Iqbal, 556

In the second cause of action for Monell liability,

4

plaintiff alleges that the Doe defendants acted pursuant to

5

unconstitutional San Joaquin County customs, policies, and

6

practices.

7

under section 1983 “when execution of a government’s policy or

8

custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or

9

acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts

(Compl. ¶ 31.)

A municipality can only be liable

10

the injury.”

11

436 U.S. 658, 693 (1978).

12

rejected [] conclusory allegations that lack factual content from

13

which one could plausibly infer Monell liability.”

14

of Fairfield, 833 F. Supp. 2d 1189, 1196 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (citing

15

cases).

16

Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of the City of N.Y.,
“Since Iqbal, courts have repeatedly

Via v. City

Plaintiff’s Complaint contains only conclusory

17

allegations regarding defendant San Joaquin’s customs, policies,

18

and procedures.

19

policies and customs of (1) failing to properly train concerning

20

the handling of “treatable life threatening conditions”; (2)

21

denying inmates access to appropriate “care for serious medical

22

needs”; (3) failing to properly train concerning the handling of

23

“persons with serious medical conditions at the County Jail”; (4)

24

“failing to properly investigate . . . incidents of the handling

25

[of] person with life threatening medical conditions”; (5)

26

ignoring “unconstitutional or unlawful law enforcement activity”;

27

(6) allowing law enforcement officers to file incomplete and

28

inaccurate reports; (7) tolerating a “’code of silence’ among law

The Complaint alleges defendant San Joaquin had

5

1

enforcement officers”; and (8) tolerating inadequate procedures

2

for reviewing complaints of officer misconduct.

3

32.)

4

factual allegations.

5

of the purported practices, policies, or customs caused the

6

decedent’s injury.

7

1:10-982 AWI SKO, 2010 WL 5314360, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20,

8

2010) (“[T]here are simply no details furnished about any

9

particular incident that indicate how Plaintiff’s rights were

10
11

(Compl. ¶¶ 31-

Each alleged policy and custom is unsupported by any
Further, plaintiff fails to allege how any

See Telles v. City of Waterford, Civ. No.

violated.”).
Plaintiff concedes that the Complaint “lacks elaborate

12

details that support [plaintiff’s] failure to discipline and

13

inadequate training claims,” but argues that a relaxed pleading

14

standard applies to plaintiff’s Monell claim because of the “pre-

15

discovery posture” of the case and allegations on the basis of

16

“information and belief” suffice.

17

(Docket No. 9).)

18

doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than

19

conclusions.”

20

allegations regarding the customs, policies, and procedures of

21

defendant San Joaquin, plaintiff’s Monell claim cannot survive.

22

Accordingly, the court must dismiss plaintiffs’ first

23
24

(Pl.’s Opp’n 10:14-11:15

However, “Rule 8 . . . does not unlock the

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79.

Absent factual

two causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff’s third cause of action for wrongful death

25

lacks the requisite factual allegations as well.

26

of the cause of action for wrongful death are the tort

27

(negligence or other wrongful act), the resulting death, and the

28

damages, consisting of the pecuniary loss suffered by the heirs.”
6

“The elements

1

Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Ctr., 140 Cal. App. 4th 1256, 1263 (6th

2

Dist. 2006).

3

owed the decedent “a legal duty, that defendants breached that

4

duty, and that the breach proximately caused [decedent’s]

5

injuries.”

6

4th 1138, 1145 (2004).

7

Negligence requires allegations that defendants

Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Ctrs., Inc., 32 Cal.

As previously stated, the Complaint fails to allege any

8

specific wrongful conduct by defendants, let alone conduct that

9

the court could reasonably infer constitutes negligence.

In the

10

Complaint, plaintiff merely alleges that defendants’ “negligent

11

actions and/or negligent failure to act, as set forth herein-

12

above proximately caused the death of decedent.”

13

Plaintiff’s legal conclusion that defendants were negligent is

14

insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

15

at 678.

16

cause of action for wrongful death.

17

(Compl. ¶ 38.)

See Iqbal, 556 U.S.

Accordingly, the court must dismiss plaintiff’s third

Defendants also move to dismiss plaintiff’s fourth

18

cause of action for negligence.

19

suffers from the same deficiencies as the third cause of action

20

for wrongful death.

21

her opposition.

22

will dismiss plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for negligence.

23

The fourth cause of action

Further, plaintiff withdrew this claim in

(Pl.’s Opp’n 12:8-11.)

Accordingly, the court

Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for violation of

24

California Government Code § 845.6 likewise lacks any factual

25

specificity.

26

if an employee is acting within the scope of his employment and

27

“knows or has reason to know that the prisoner is in need of

28

immediate medical care and he fails to take reasonable action to

Under section 845.6, a public entity may be liable

7

1

summon such medical care.”

2

again relies on legal conclusions that defendants “knew or had

3

reason to know that Decedent was in need of immediate and higher

4

level medical care, treatment, observation and monitoring” in

5

order to support her claim.

6

devoid of factual allegations regarding the circumstances

7

surrounding the decedent’s alleged need for immediate medical

8

care, the actions of any jail employees, and whether an employee

9

was acting within the scope of his employment.

Cal. Gov’t Code § 845.6.

(Compl. ¶ 47.)

Plaintiff

The Complaint is

Accordingly, the

10

court must dismiss plaintiff’s fifth cause of action under

11

California Government Code § 845.6.

12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to

13

dismiss all causes of action be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

14

Plaintiff has fourteen days from the date this Order is

15

signed to file a First Amended Complaint, if she can do so

16

consistent with this Order.

17

Dated:

March 7, 2017

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8