Borges v. City of Eureka et al

Filing 104

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT re 67 MOTION for Summary Judgment /Summary Adjudication filed by Tim Hammer, Terri Bittner, Michael Downey, Tim Hershberger, Leo Basler, County of Humboldt, David Swim. The hearing set for June 28, 2016 is VACATED to be reset by the Court. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 6/23/16. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2016)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

STEPHANY BORGES,

7
8
9
10

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 15-cv-00846 YGR
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
Re: Dkt. No. 67
CITY OF EUREKA, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Defendants move for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims on grounds that defendants

13

did not violate the deceased’s constitutional right to medical care under the Fourteenth

14

Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Specifically, defendants take the position that plaintiff must

15

show defendants acted with deliberate indifference, i.e. that they “kn[ew] of and disregard[ed] an

16

excessive risk to inmate health and safety.” Gibson v. Cnty. of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1187

17

(9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)). This standard proposed by

18

defendants is a subjective one; it requires plaintiff to show that defendants were “subjectively aware

19

that serious harm is likely to result from a failure to provide medical care.” Id. at 1193 (emphasis

20

in original). By contrast, plaintiff contends that the deceased’s status as an arrestee – not charged

21

with any crime – counsels that the applicable standard be an objective one. Said otherwise,

22

plaintiff’s position is that she need only show that defendants’ denial of medical care to the

23

deceased as a “pretrial detainee” was “objectively unreasonable.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135

24

S.Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015).

25

In Kingsley, the Supreme Court held that the objectively unreasonable standard applies to an

26

excessive force claim brought by a pretrial detainee. Id. The Ninth Circuit recently considered

27

whether Kingsley requires application of the same objective standard in failure-to-protect claims

28

brought by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Castro v.

1

Cnty. of Los Angeles, 797 F.3d 654, 673-76 (9th Cir. 2015), reh’g en banc granted, 809 F.3d 536

2

(9th Cir. 2015). While a two-judge majority of the panel in Castro held that Kingsley did not

3

require reconsideration of the subjective deliberate indifference standard in this context, that

4

decision was reheard en banc and is no longer good authority in this Circuit. An en banc panel of

5

the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in Castro in March of this year.

6

Despite the apparent impact the en banc panel’s decision in Castro might have in this case,

7

the parties do not address directly whether the pending decision will control this case. Accordingly,

8

the Court requires supplemental briefing from the parties. The parties shall submit briefs of no

9

more than five pages by no later than July 1, 2016 addressing whether: (1) the Ninth Circuit’s en
banc decision in Castro, Appeal No. 12-56829, will dictate whether the Court must apply a

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

subjective or objective standard in this case; and (2) if so, whether this case should be stayed

12

pending resolution thereof by the Ninth Circuit. For purposes of argument in their supplemental

13

submissions, the parties should assume that resolution of whether the applicable standard is

14

subjective or objective will change the outcome of defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

15
16
17
18
19
20

The hearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 67) currently set for
June 28, 2016 is VACATED to be reset by the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: June 23, 2016
_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2