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