Marlene Henderson et al v. County of Santa Cruz et al

Filing 16

ORDER by Judge Ronald M Whyte granting in part 7 Motion to Dismiss (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
13

MARLENE HENDERSON, THE ESTATE
OF EDYTH HENDERSON, and THE
ESTATE OF JOSEPH HENDERSON,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

Plaintiffs,

14
15

Case No. 14-CV-03544

v.
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, THE SANTA
CRUZ COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, THE SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY,
and DOES 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE,

[Re Docket No. 7]

Defendants.

Defendants, the County of Santa Cruz, The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Department and the
Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency (collectively, “County” or “County Defendants”) move to
dismiss the complaint of plaintiffs Marlene Henderson, The Estate of Edyth Henderson and The Estate
of Joseph Henderson’s (collectively, “plaintiffs”) under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure §§ 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6). For the reasons explained below, the court grants the motion to dismiss as to the federal
cause of action and gives plaintiffs thirty days leave to amend.

26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. 14-CV-03544-RMW
LRM

-1-

I. Background

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

A. Factual Background
As alleged in the complaint, plaintiff Marlene Henderson is the surviving daughter of
decedents Edyth and Joseph Henderson. Dkt. No. 1-1, Cmplt. at 1. On June 30, 2013 Edyth and
Joseph were both murdered by their son, James Henderson. Id. at 3. James Henderson was
previously housed in the Santa Cruz County Jail Mental Health Unit. Id. Prior to his release from
jail, Edyth and Marlene both asked for James to be released to a mental health facility, because
James suffered from “paranoid schizophrenia, agoraphobia, and antisocial personality disorder.” Id.
James had also made threats against Edyth, Joseph, and Marlene.
Both Edyth and Marlene were “assured” by the County that James would be released from
jail into a mental health program. Id. at 4. They also requested to be notified when James was
released. Id.
James was released from jail one month early, and the Henderson family was not notified.
Although not alleged, the County represents that James was released on February 11, 2013. DKt.
No. 7 at 3 n.1. James was not released into any mental health program. Id. James then killed his
parents in their home. Complt. at 4.
B. Procedural Background
Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging five causes of action in Santa Cruz County Superior
Court. Dkt. No. 1-1. Plaintiffs alleged (1) wrongful death, (2) negligent infliction of emotional
distress, (3) negligent hiring, training, and supervision, (4) negligence, failure to warn, and (5) a 42
U.S.C. § 1983 claim based on a 14th amendment right to familial relationships.
Defendants removed the case to federal court based on the § 1983 claim and then moved to
dismiss. Dkt. No. 1 (Notice of Removal); Dkt. No. 7 (Motion to Dismiss).
II. Analysis

24
25

A. Section 1983 Claim
“To succeed on a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) the conduct complained of was

26
committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a
27
federal constitutional or statutory right.” Patel v. Kent School Dist., 648 F.3d 965, 971 (9th Cir.
28
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. 14-CV-03544-RMW
LRM

-2-

1

2011). County claims that the actor that caused plaintiffs’ harm, James Henderson, is not a state

2

actor and that the actions taken by the state actors in this case did not deprive the plaintiffs of any

3

federal constitutional or statutory right.

4

Furthermore, the § 1983 claim is made against the county which would require a Monell

5

claim identifying a challenged policy, or custom. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 701

6

(1978). Plaintiffs’ argue that they alleged a “custom and policy” of deliberate indifference to the

7

threat of James while he was in custody of the County. Dkt. No. 14 at 9.

8
9

This is not the type of policy envisioned by Monell, and it is not adequately pled in the
complaint. “Official municipal policy includes the decisions of a government’s lawmakers, the acts

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

of its policymaking officials, and practices so persistent and widespread as to practically have the

11

force of law.” Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1359 (2011). Furthermore, allegations of

12

random acts, or single instances of misconduct, are insufficient to establish a municipal custom. See

13

Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d 712, 714 (9th Cir. 1996); Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d

14

1439, 1444 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Bull v. City & County of San Francisco,

15

595 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiffs cannot state a Monell claim based on a policy of deliberate

16

indifference to the threat of a single person. Accordingly, the court dismisses this claim for failure to

17

state a cause of action, with twenty days leave to amend.

18

B. Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Remaining State Law Claims

19

Having dismissed the only federal claim, which formed the basis for this court’s jurisdiction

20

over this case, the court considers whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining

21

state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Subsection (c)(3) allows the court to “decline to exercise

22

supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim . . . if the district court has dismissed all claims

23

over which it has original jurisdiction.”

24

Here, plaintiffs originally filed in state court, no substantial proceedings have taken place,

25

and the case involves the interaction of numerous state statutes. Therefore, if plaintiffs do not elect

26

to amend, or do not successfully amend to allege a federal claim, the court, in its discretion, will

27

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will remand the case to the state court. See also

28

United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (if federal claims are dismissed
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. 14-CV-03544-RMW
LRM

-3-

1

before trial, state law claims should also be dismissed); Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556

2

U.S. 635, 636 (2009) (discussing appellate review of an order to remand following decision not to

3

exercise jurisdiction over state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)).

4
5
6

III. Order
For the reasons explained above, the court grants in part the motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs may
file an amended complaint, sufficiently alleging a federal claim, by November 17, 2014.

7
8
9

Dated: October 17, 2014

_________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. 14-CV-03544-RMW
LRM

-4-