Mendez Jimenez v. University of California et al

Filing 45

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 11/8/19 GRANTING Summary Judgment as to the Section 1983 claim against Defendants Sokolov and Javist. (Coll, A)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

LUIS ALBERTO MENDEZ JIMENEZ,

6
7
8

No.

2:18-cv-00044-JAM-KJN

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER GRANTING THE REGENTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST
JAVIST AND SOKOLOV

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; et al.,

9

Defendants.

10
11

Plaintiff filed his complaint for damages against The

12

Regents of the University of California, Danielle Dass, Charlene

13

Williams, Gregory Sokolov, and Andrea Javist (together, the “JPS

14

Defendants”) as well as the County of Sacramento and three county

15

deputies (“County”).

16

injuries caused by Defendants’ medical negligence and deliberate

17

indifference toward his constitutional rights while he was

18

detained in the county jail.

19

Id.

Plaintiff alleges that he suffered

Id.

The County, and the JPS Defendants filed separate motions

20

for summary judgment.

21

Defendants Mot.”), ECF No. 32; County Mot. for Summ. J. (“County

22

Mot.”), ECF No. 33.

23

hearing on both motions.

24

ECF No. 44.

25

JPS Defendants Mot. for Summ. J. (“JPS

On November 5, 2019, the Court held a
Minutes for November 5, 2019 Hearing,

At the hearing, the Court granted the County’s motion in

26

its entirety.

The Court denied the JPS Defendants’ motion for

27

summary judgment on Plaintiff’s medical negligence claim and

28

Section 1983 claims against Dass and Williams. The Court also
1

1

took the JPS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on

2

Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim against Sokolov and Javist under

3

submission.

4

summary judgment on this claim against Javist and Sokolov.

For the reasons stated below, the Court now GRANTS

5
6
7

I.

OPINION

Plaintiff pled a section 1983 claim against Sokolov and

8

Javist, arguing their failure to provide adequate mental health

9

treatment to inmates constituted a violation of the Fourteenth

10

Amendment.

Compl. ¶ 27.

Plaintiff’s opposition to the JPS

11

Defendants’ summary judgment motion appears to conflate a section

12

1983 municipal liability with a section 1983 claim against public

13

officials acting in their individual capacity.

14

Opp’n at 16.

15

recognize a respondeat superior theory of municipal liability,

16

that request is denied. Neither municipalities nor public

17

officials acting in their official capacity can be held

18

vicariously liable under section 1983.

19

1228, 1242 (9th Cir. 2018).

20

Sokolov and Javist as defendants in their individual capacity,

21

the Court treats his section 1983 claims against them as resting

22

on a theory of individual, supervisor liability.

23

Supervisory officials violate section 1983 when they are

24

(1) personally involved in a constitutional deprivation, or

25

(2) if there is a “sufficient casual connection between the

26

supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.

27

Rodriguez v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776, 798 (9th Cir.

28

2018).

JPS Defendants

To the extent Plaintiff is asking the Court to

Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d

Because Plaintiff’s complaint names

2

Id.

1

1.

2

Personally Involved

The JPS Defendants argue “there is no evidence [Javist and

3

Sokolov] had any personal involvement in the alleged deprivation

4

of [Plaintiff’s] mental health care,” because they never saw

5

Plaintiff.

6

dispute this.

7

Thus, neither Dr. Javist nor Ms. Sokolov can be “liable for any

8

personal involvement in the deprivation of [Plaintiff’s]

9

constitutional [violation]....”

JPS Defendants Reply at 7.

Plaintiff does not

See generally JPS Defendants Opp’n at 15-19.

Redman v. San Diego, 942 F.2d

10

1435 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding the defendant could not be liable

11

for any personal involvement when he was not “personally

12

appraised” of the harm plaintiff was suffering).

13

2.

Casual Connection

14

Even if not personally involved, a supervisor “may be

15

liable in his individual capacity for his own culpable action or

16

inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his

17

subordinates; for his acquiescence in the constitutional

18

deprivation; or for conduct that showed a reckless or callous

19

indifference to the rights of others.”

20

798.

21

plaintiff which was the proximate cause of the injury.”

22

v. Bacca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011).

23

satisfy the causation element by showing a supervising defendant

24

“set[] in motion a series of acts by others or by knowingly

25

refus[ing] to terminate a series of acts by others, which [the

26

supervisor] knew or reasonably should have known would cause

27

others to inflict a constitutional injury.”

28

1207-08.

Rodriguez, 891 F.3d at

“[A] plaintiff must show the supervisor breached a duty to

3

Starr

A plaintiff can

Starr, 652 F.3d at

1

Plaintiff alleges the “absence of any real mental health

2

treatment options [under the supervision of Sokolov and Javist]

3

caused him to decompensate during his incarceration, and

4

ultimately led him to attempt suicide.”

5

18.

6

Plaintiff’s injuries because “they did not breach a duty to

7

Plaintiff which was the proximate cause of the injury.

8

…[Plaintiff]was not their patient and they owed him no duty.”

9

JPS Defendants Reply at 7.

10

JPS Defendants Opp’n at

Defendant argues Javist and Sokolov could not have caused

The Court agrees.

Plaintiff never established that Dr. Sokolov and Ms. Javist

11

owed him a duty.

12

evidence concluding that Dr. Sokolov and Ms. Javist caused his

13

suicide attempt or prevented him from receiving mental health

14

care during his detention. Plaintiff relies on the testimony of

15

witness Dr. Bruce Gage to support his causation conclusion.

16

Opp’n 18-19.

17

never reaches a causation conclusion.

18

Further, Plaintiff did not present any expert

JPS

But as Defendants correctly point out, Dr. Gage
JPS Defendants Reply at 7.

Proximate cause is a question of fact for the jury, only if

19

it is possible “to raise a reasonable inference that the act

20

complained of was the proximate cause of the injury.”

21

Drug Co. v. Nihill, 276 F.2d 637, 645 (9th Cir. 1960).

22

evidence supporting Plaintiff’s conclusion of causation, a jury

23

cannot raise a reasonable inference as to that issue.

24

jury would be left to speculate.

25

failed to demonstrate that there is a genuine dispute of material

26

fact as to the element of causal connection with respect to

27

Sokolov and Javist’s alleged individual liability under Section

28

1983. Summary judgment is granted in favor of these defendants.

Rexall
Without

Rather, a

Accordingly, Plaintiff has

4

1
2

II.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS summary

3

judgment as to the Section 1983 claim against Defendants Sokolov

4

and Javist.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 8, 2019

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5