Hughes v. County of Mendocino et al

Filing 72

Order by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas granting in part and denying in part 62 Motion to Dismiss.(njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

EUREKA DIVISION

6
7

MELODIE HUGHES, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-01794-NJV

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

9
10

COUNTY OF MENDOCINO, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 62

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff Melodie Hughes (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se in this action filed against the

14

County of Mendocino, Sheriff Thomas Allen, Deputy Chora, Deputy DeMarco, California

15

Forensic Medical Group (“CFMG”), and Dr. Taylor Fithian. On March 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a

16

Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Defendants California Forensic Medical Group and Dr.

17

Taylor Fithian filed an Answer to the SAC, while the County of Mendocino, Sheriff Thomas

18

Allen, Deputy Chora, and Deputy DeMarco filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 62) pursuant to Rule

19

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff filed a Response to the Motion (Doc.

20

68), to which Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. 70). The court took the matter under submission on

21

the papers. (Doc. 69). For the reasons that follow the court will grant the motion in part and deny

22

the motion in part.

23

FACTS AS ALLEGED IN THE SAC

24

The Complaint is predicated on the events surrounding the death of Plaintiff‟s son, Ivan

25

Slater (“Slater”). Slater was arrested by Deputy DeMarco on March 22, 2014, and taken to the

26

Mendocino County Jail. SAC. (Doc. 58) at ¶21. When Slater was arrested, he was suffering

27

“heroin withdrawals” and Deputy DeMarco was aware of Slater‟s medical need. Id. at ¶22. At

28

the jail, Deputy Chora completed a “Medical Booking Screening paperwork.” Slater became very

1

sick in the first 24 hours. Id. at 26. The CFMG failed to follow protocol and never summoned a

2

doctor. Id. at ¶30-32.

3
4

On March 26, 2014, Slater was released on his own recognizance. Id. at ¶35. On March
27, 2014, Slater died. Slater did not use heroin within the last two hours of his life. Id. at ¶38.
CLAIMS

5
6

Plaintiff presents six claims for relief in the SAC: (1) the First Claim is pursuant to 42

7

U.S.C. § 1983, based on alleged violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

8

United States Constitution and is against all Defendants; (2) the Second Claim is pursuant to 42

9

U.S.C. § 1983, based on alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution for deprivation of the liberty interests in the parent-child relationship and is

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

against all Defendants; (3) the Third Claim is for failure to furnish/summon medical care arising

12

under California state law and is against all Defendants; (4) the Fourth Claim is for negligent

13

supervision, training, hiring, and retention under California state law and is against Sheriff

14

Allman, CFMG, and Dr. Taylor Fithian; (5) the Fifth Claim is a negligence claim under California

15

state law and is against all Defendants; and (6) the Sixth Claim is for wrongful death under

16

California state law and is brought against all Defendants.
LEGAL STANDARD

17
18

The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

19

is to test the legal sufficiency of the claims stated in the complaint. A motion to dismiss may be

20

brought under Rule 12(b)(6) when the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

21

granted.

22

A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

23

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). While Rule 8 “does not require „detailed

24

factual allegations,‟” a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to „state

25

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.‟” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct.

26

1937,1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570, 127 S.Ct.

27

1955, 1955 (2007)). Facial plausibility is established “when the plaintiff pleads factual content

28

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
2

1

misconduct alleged.” Id. Thus, in order to survive a motion to dismiss, the nonmoving party must

2

allege facts that are “enough to raise a right to above the speculative level . . . on the assumption

3

that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at

4

555.

5

Dismissal of a complaint can be based on either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the

6

lack of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept.,

7

901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a

8

claim, the court will take all material allegations as true and construe them in the light most

9

favorable to the plaintiff. NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986).
DISCUSSION

10
A.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Deputy Defendants

In her Response, Plaintiff concedes the Fourth Claim against Deputy DeMarco and all

13

claims except the Third Claim against Deputy Chora. In addition, Plaintiff does not oppose

14

Defendants‟ request to dismiss the Sixth Claim against the deputy Defendants.

15
16

1.

First-Third Claims against Deputy DeMarco

Defendants move for dismissal of the First, Second, and Third claims against Deputy

17

DeMarco on the basis that Plaintiff has failed to plead that the deputy acted with deliberate

18

indifference. As Defendants state:

19
20
21

22
23
24

Establishing deliberate indifference requires that a plaintiff “show [(1)] a „serious
medical need‟ by demonstrating that „failure to treat a prisoner's condition could
result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain,‟” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting McGuckin v.
Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992)) (2) that “defendant‟s response to the
need was deliberately indifferent.” Id. “Deliberate indifference may be established
by evidence of „(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or
possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.‟” M.H. v. County
of Alameda, 62 F. Supp. 3d 1049, 1076 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (quoting Jett v. Penner,
439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)).

25

Def. Mot. (Doc. 62) at 9. Defendants assert that “there are no allegations in the SAC that

26

DeMarco‟s actions of taking Slater to the MCJ constituted a purposeful act or failure to respond to

27

Slater‟s pain or possible medical need.” Id. at 4. The court does not agree. Plaintiff alleges that

28

Deputy DeMarco, the arresting officer, knew of Slater‟s need for medical help and, acting with
3

1

deliberate indifference, failed to summon it. SAC (Doc. 58) at ¶¶ 22, 23, & 41. This is sufficient

2

to state a cause of action under the First, Second, and Third Claims against the deputy and this

3

request for dismissal is denied.
2.

4
5

The Third Claim against Deputy Chora

The SAC alleges that Deputy Chora “failed to complete a medical screening and call for a

6

nurse” and did not mention heroin detoxification on the screening form. Id. at ¶¶ 17 &24.

7

Defendants argue that “there are no allegations in Plaintiff‟s SAC that either DeMarco or Chora

8

interacted with Slater at a time when he was in immediate need of medical care.” Defs.‟ Mot.

9

(Doc. 62) at 11. However, the SAC alleges that Slater was in need of medical care upon arrest and
then describes his condition as worsening. Thus, Plaintiff has set forth a claim for deliberate

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

indifference and the request to dismiss Deputy Chora from the Third Claim is denied.
3.

12
13

The Fifth Claim against Deputy DeMarco

This Claim for relief is a negligence claim brought under California law, and against

14

Deputy Demarco asserts that “nurses and officers failed to comply with a minimum professional

15

standard in the provision of medical care to [] Slater.” SAC (Doc. 58) at ¶73. This claim is

16

separate and distinct from the Third Claim which was brought as a failure to summon or furnish

17

medical care under California state law. There are no allegations in the SAC that Deputy

18

DeMarco provided medical care, or was under an obligation to personally provide medical care to

19

a professional standard for Slater. Rather, the allegations are that Deputy DeMarco failed to

20

properly summon medical care. Those claims are properly brought under the Third Claim and not

21

this claim. Any failure to summon medical care against Deputy DeMarco contained in this claim

22

is duplicative of the failure to summon medical care claim in the Third Claim. Accordingly, this

23

claim is dismissed as to Deputy DeMarco.

24

B.

Defendants County of Mendocino and Sheriff Allman

25

1.

The Fourth Claim against the County of Mendocino

26

The County moves for dismissal of the Fourth Claim. The Fourth Claim was previously

27

dismissed against the County. The SAC does not assert a new claim against the County.

28

Accordingly, that request is denied as moot.
4

1
2

2.

The Fifth Claim against the County and Sheriff Allman

The County and Sheriff Allman move for dismissal from this claim on the basis that the
County is immune and that Sheriff Allman was not engaged in the healing arts. Mot. (Doc. 62) at

4

14. The allegations in the SAC are that “nurses and officers” failed to provide a professional

5

standard of care in the provision of medical care and that the other defendants “failed to adopt

6

policies, procedures, and training for staff,” which resulted in there being “NO MEDICAL CARE

7

AT THE MENDOCINO COUNTY JAIL!” SAC (Doc. 58) at 11 (capitalization in the original).

8

As the court instructed in its Order of October 27, 2015, a “public entity is liable for injury

9

proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of

10

his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

action against that employee or his personal representative.” (Doc. 37) at 6 (quoting Cal. Gov‟t

12

Code § 815.2(a)). The court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff has failed to set forth a claim

13

under § 815.2(a). Plaintiff has failed to plead that it was within the scope of Sheriff Allman‟s

14

employment to provide the policies, procedures, and training for staff regarding the provision of

15

medical care. Again, this is not a failure to summon medical or furnish medical care claim, but

16

rather whether the medical care provided was to the “professional standard of care.” As Plaintiff

17

states in the SAC, it was CFMG that provided medical services at the county jail, not the Sheriff.

18

Accordingly, Defendants‟ request that the County and Defendant Allman be dismissed from the

19

Fifth Claim is granted.

20

CONCLUSION

21

For the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that the motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) is

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Further it is ORDERED that this matter is set for a case management conference at 2:00
p.m. on July 26, 2016:
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 13, 2016
______________________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge
5

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

MELODIE HUGHES, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-01794-NJV

Plaintiffs,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

COUNTY OF MENDOCINO, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9
10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee of the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on May 13, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18

Melodie Hughes
P.O. Box 207
Willits, CA 95490

19
20

Dated: May 13, 2016

21

22
23

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26

By:________________________
Robert Illman, Law Clerk to the
Honorable NANDOR J. VADAS

27
28
6