Spies et al v. El Dorado County et al
Filing
29
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 12/12/2016 DENYING 6 defendant Marshall Medical's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. (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
15
16
LAWRENCE SPIES, SR., et al.;
Plaintiffs,
CIV. NO.: 2:16-02232 WBS GGH
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION
TO DISMISS
v.
EL DORADO COUNTY, et al.;
Defendants.
17
18
19
----oo0oo---Plaintiffs Lawrence Spies, Sr., and Linda Spies brought
20
this action against defendants El Dorado County, California
21
Forensic Medical Group, Inc., Marshall Medical Center (“Marshall
22
Medical”), John D’Agostini, Randy Peshon, Matt Foxworthy, Jackie
23
Noren, Robin Hope, Dr. Raymond Herr, Lisa Issacson, Dr. Taylor
24
Fithian, Mark Hangebrauck, Dr. John Skratt, and Dr. Alexis Lieser
25
for the care and treatment of Lawrence Spies, Jr., prior to his
26
suicide in the Placerville Jail.
27
Marshall Medical’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of
28
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Before the court is defendant
1
1
I.
Factual and Procedural History
2
Officer Hangebrauck arrested the decedent on a
3
misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol charge on the
4
evening of September 18, 2015.
5
1).)
6
Officer Hangebrauck and another officer of the decedent’s history
7
of hospitalization, attempted suicides, mental health issues, and
8
legal issues.
(Compl. ¶¶ 48, 50 (Docket No.
During his arrest, the decedent’s mother allegedly informed
9
(Id. ¶¶ 49-52.)
The officers took the decedent to Marshall Medical for
10
medical clearance prior to his incarceration.
11
Plaintiffs allege there is no record that any police officer
12
relayed the information regarding the decedent’s suicide risk to
13
Marshall Medical.
14
and Dr. Lieser allegedly evaluated the decedent.
15
records from that evaluation allegedly note that the decedent
16
seemed depressed and intoxicated.
17
Marshall Medical allegedly did not perform a suicide risk
18
assessment on the decedent and the doctors declared him “fit for
19
incarceration.”
20
records of a prior incarceration clearance following a psychotic
21
episode by the decedent.
22
(Id. ¶ 55.)
(Id.)
(Id. ¶¶ 53-54.)
While at the hospital, Dr. Skratt
(Id.)
(Id.)
The
The doctors and
Marshall Medical also allegedly had
(Id.)
Around 1:20 a.m. on September 19, the officers
23
allegedly took the decedent to the Placerville Jail.
24
Prior to booking, the decedent allegedly underwent a medical
25
screening process at the jail where Office Hangebrauck submitted
26
a form indicating the decedent may be a danger to himself and
27
others.
28
only medical official allegedly on duty was licensed vocational
(Id. ¶ 98.)
(Id. ¶ 97.)
At the time of the decedent’s booking, the
2
1
nurse Hope, who recorded the decedent’s affirmative answers to
2
suicidal tendencies, noted the decedent was still under the
3
influence of alcohol, and partially completed a “Nursing
4
Assessment of Psychiatric & Suicidal Inmate” form.
5
03, 106.)
6
allegedly placed the decedent in his own cell instead of a
7
sobering cell, “as was mandatory by Title 15.”
8
The decedent was dead from an apparent suicide when jail
9
officials found him around 4:45 p.m. on September 19.
10
(Id. ¶¶ 102-
Following the medical screening, jail officials
(Id. ¶¶ 107-08.)
(Id. ¶
109.)
11
Plaintiffs initiated this action, alleging the
12
following causes of action: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against
13
all defendants except Marshall Medical for violations of
14
decedent’s Eighth Amendment rights and due process rights; (2)
15
Monell claim under § 1983 against all defendants except Marshall
16
Medical; (3) wrongful death and medical malpractice claim against
17
Marshall Medical, Dr. Skratt, Dr. Lieser, and certain jail
18
defendants; and (4) failure to supervise claim under § 1983
19
against certain jail and county defendants.
20
moves to dismiss plaintiffs’ sole claim against it for wrongful
21
death and medical malpractice.
22
II.
23
Marshall Medical now
Discussion
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the
24
court must dismiss a complaint once the court determines that it
25
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims.
26
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
27
until the party asserting jurisdiction proves otherwise, and once
28
a party challenges subject-matter jurisdiction, the party
Fed.
The court presumes a lack of jurisdiction
3
1
asserting that jurisdiction exists bears the burden of proof.
2
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
3
(1994).
4
jurisdiction” that “possess only the power authorized by
5
Constitution and statute,” id., a court must dismiss claims over
6
which it has no jurisdiction.
Because “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
7
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, where a district court has
8
original jurisdiction over a claim, it also has supplemental
9
jurisdiction over “all other claims that are so related to claims
10
in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form
11
part of the same case or controversy.”
12
the same “case or controversy” as a federal claim when the two
13
“derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” such that the
14
plaintiff “would ordinarily be expected to try them in one
15
judicial proceeding.”
16
850, 855-57 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting United Mine Workers of Am.
17
v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966)).
18
A state claim is part of
Kuba v. 1-A Agricultural Ass’n, 387 F.3d
“Only a loose factual connection to the underlying
19
federal claim is required for supplemental jurisdiction
20
purposes.”
21
2011 WL 1302240, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2011); see Ammerman v.
22
Sween, 54 F.3d 423, 424 (7th Cir. 1995) (“A loose factual
23
connection between the claims is generally sufficient.”).
24
this condition is satisfied, the federal court maintains
25
jurisdiction over the state claims and all other parties--even
26
parties not facing an allegation that they violated federal law.”
27
Rhodes, 2011 WL 1302240, at *6 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and Sea-
28
Land Serv., Inc. v. Lozen Int’l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808, 814 (9th Cir.
Rhodes v. Placer County, Civ. No. 2:09-00489 MCE KJN,
4
“If
1
2
2002)).
Plaintiffs’ alleged state and federal law claims form
3
part of the same case or controversy.
Here, plaintiffs’ federal
4
claims involve the same nucleus of operative fact as their state
5
medical malpractice claim against Marshall Medical--the alleged
6
failure by defendants to properly respond to decedent’s medical
7
and mental needs following his arrest.
8
violations of decedent’s rights by defendants occurred over less
9
than twenty-four hours while the decedent was in custody.
All of the alleged
10
(Compl. ¶¶ 48, 109.)
11
plaintiffs allege that the officers arrested the decedent with
12
knowledge of his mental history, continuing with the alleged
13
approval of fitness for incarceration by Marshall Medical in
14
light of a previous psychotic episode, an allegedly insufficient
15
evaluation of the decedent at the jail by a licensed vocational
16
nurse, his incarceration in his own cell in violation of statute,
17
and his eventual suicide after allegedly over twelve hours
18
without supervision.
19
the Complaint alleges a temporally connected chain of events.
20
Beginning on the evening of September 18,
(Id. ¶¶ 48, 51-52, 55, 101-06, 109.)
Thus,
Severing the chain of events at the time of the
21
decedent’s admittance into Marshall Medical also makes little
22
sense because the events preceding his admittance and following
23
his release from Marshall Medical are all relevant to plaintiffs’
24
federal claims.
25
arrest, the events preceding decedent’s examination at Marshall
26
Medical, and whether officers conveyed the decedent’s suicide
27
risk to Marshall Medical also provides context to the decedent’s
28
alleged treatment at Marshall Medical and Marshall Medical’s
Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the decedent’s
5
1
culpability.
2
overlapping periods of time, similar of facts, and overlap of
3
witnesses and evidence.
4
is more than “[a] loose factual connection between the claims.”
5
Ammerman, 54 F.3d at 424; see Rhodes, 2011 WL 1302240, at *6-7
6
(finding that numerous violations of a plaintiff’s rights over
7
seven consecutive days by various defendants in a hospital and
8
jail constituted the same case or controversy to grant
9
supplemental jurisdiction).
10
The federal and state law claims therefore involve
(See id. ¶¶ 55, 125-26, 141-42.)
This
There is thus a common nucleus of operative fact
11
between plaintiffs’ state law claim against Marshall Medical and
12
the claims that the court has original jurisdiction over.
13
Because there is a common nucleus of operative fact, Marshall
14
Medical’s alleged actions are part of the same case or
15
controversy and the court has supplemental jurisdiction over
16
plaintiffs’ medical malpractice claim against Marshall Medical.
17
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Marshall
18
Medical’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter
19
jurisdiction be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
20
Dated:
December 12, 2016
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?