Papia v. County of Marin et al

Filing 27

ORDER by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting with leave to amend 17 Motion to Dismiss. Amended complaint is due by March 31, 2025. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2025)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
ANGELINA PAPIA,

5

Case No. 24-cv-06769-JSC

Plaintiff,

6

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS

v.

7

COUNTY OF MARIN, et al.,

8

Re: Dkt. No. 17.

Defendants.

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10
11

Plaintiff sues the County of Marin (the “County”), Marin County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff

12

Jamie Scardina, County of Marin Department of Health and Human Services, Anthony Baylacq,

13

and Doe Defendants for the death of Plaintiff’s son, Dylan Baylacq (“Mr. Baylacq”), while in

14

custody at the Marin County Jail.1 (Dkt. No. 5.)2 Plaintiff brings claims under both 42 U.S.C. §

15

1983, and California state law. (Id. at 12-26.) The County and Sheriff Scardina move to dismiss

16

the complaint on the grounds Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief for her Section 1983 claims,

17

and because Defendants are immune from liability under the state law claims. (Dkt. No. 17.)

18

After carefully considering the parties’ written submissions, the Court concludes oral argument is

19

unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), VACATES the March 12, 2025 hearing, and GRANTS

20

Defendants’ motion with leave to amend.

21

1. Plaintiff Fails to Plausibly State a Monell Claim

22

“A government entity may not be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, unless a policy,

23

practice, or custom of the entity can be shown to be a moving force behind a violation of

24

constitutional rights.” Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing

25

Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. Of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978)). “Official

26
27
28

Anthony Baylacq, Mr. Baylacq’s father, is a named Defendant pursuant to California Code of
Civil Procedure § 382. (Dkt. No. 5. at 4.)
2
Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the
ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.
1

1

municipal policy includes the decisions of a government’s lawmakers, the acts of its policymaking

2

officials, and practices so persistent and widespread as to practically have the force of law.”

3

Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 61 (2011).
The complaint alleges “[b]y policy and procedure, and practice, Defendants placed [Mr.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4
5

Baylacq] in a position of vulnerability and danger” but does not allege facts supporting a plausible

6

inference there was any such policy or procedure nor any facts supporting a plausible inference of

7

a persistent and widespread practice. (Dkt. No. 5 ¶ 45.) In opposing Defendants’ motion to

8

dismiss, Plaintiff identifies several facts that are not alleged in the complaint. (Dkt. No. 24 at 3-8.)

9

However, “[i]n determining the propriety of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a court may not look

10

beyond the complaint to a plaintiff’s moving papers, such as a memorandum in opposition to a

11

defendant’s motion to dismiss.” Schneider v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th

12

Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). When the opposition’s newly alleged facts are not considered,

13

Plaintiff fails to allege more than a “formulaic recitation of a cause of action’s elements,” because

14

she does not plausibly allege any policy or procedure nor a widespread or persistent practice.

15

Dougherty, 654 F.3d at 900-901.

16

So, Plaintiff’s claims 1-5 are DISMISSED with leave to amend.3

17

2. Plaintiff Fails to State a Supervisory Liability Claim Against Sheriff Scardina

18

“A supervisory official may be held liable under § 1983 only ‘if there exists either (1) his

19

or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection

20

between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.’” Keates v. Koile, 883

21

F.3d 1228, 1242-43 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Starr v. Bacca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011)).

22

Therefore, allegations that a supervisor merely “knew or should have known” about alleged

23

constitutional violations are insufficient to state a claim against a supervisor. See Lapachet v. Cal.

24

Forensic Med. Grp., Inc., 313 F. Supp. 3d 1183, 1194 (E.D. Cal. 2018) (citing Farmer v. Brennan,

25

511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)).

26
27
28

3

The § 1983 claims brought against Sheriff Scardina in his official capacity are duplicative of
claims brought against the County. See Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 646 (9th Cir.
1991) (“A suit against a governmental officer in his official capacity is equivalent to a suit against
the governmental entity itself.”).
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

Plaintiff alleges Sheriff Scardina “directed his or her subordinates in conduct that violated

2

[Mr. Baylacq’s] rights,” but does not allege facts that support a plausible inference of his personal

3

involvement or a sufficient causal connection between Sheriff Scardina’s alleged wrongful

4

conduct and the alleged constitutional violation. (Dkt. No. 5. ¶ 61.) Plaintiff does not allege

5

Sheriff Scardina was present when Mr. Baylacq was booked, or that he was involved in the

6

decision to place Mr. Baylacq in the special housing unit instead of a suicide resistant safety cell.

7

Further, Plaintiff does not allege facts that support a plausible inference of a causal connection

8

between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. See Mitchell v. Cty. of

9

Contra Costa, 21-cv-05014-DMR, 2022 WL 526161, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2022) (dismissing

10

supervisory liability claim when the plaintiff alleged the supervising defendants “either directed

11

his or her subordinates in conduct that violated Plaintiff’s rights, OR set in motion a series of acts

12

and omissions by his or her subordinates that the supervisor knew or reasonably should have

13

known would deprive Plaintiff of rights. . . .”); Arteaga v. City of Oakley, 19-cv-05725-JCS, 2020

14

WL 511876, at *2, 7-8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2020) (dismissing supervisory liability claim supported

15

by similar allegations).

16
17

Because Plaintiff does not plead sufficient facts to state a viable claim against Sheriff
Scardina, her supervisory liability claim is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

18

3. Plaintiff’s State Law Claims

19

Until Plaintiff pleads valid federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental

20

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and need not address their sufficiency at

21

this time. See Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A district court

22

‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ if it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has

23

original jurisdiction.’” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)); see also United Mine Workers of Am. v.

24

Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (“Needless decisions of state law should be avoided both as a

25

matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, …”). Should Plaintiff satisfactorily

26

allege federal claims in her amended complaint, the Court will consider Defendants’ state-law

27

immunity argument.

28
3

CONCLUSION

1
2

Because Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to plausibly support her § 1983 claims, the

3

First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Any further amended complaint

4

shall be filed no later than March 31, 2025.

5

This Order disposes of Docket No. 17.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: March 11, 2025

8
9
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4