Martinez et al v. Monterey County Sheriffs Office et al

Filing 40

ORDER GRANTING 15 MONTEREY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/17/2018. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2018)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN JOSE DIVISION

4
5

ANTONIO MARTINEZ, ET AL.,

Case No. 18-cv-00475-BLF

Plaintiffs,

6
v.

7
8

MONTEREY COUNTY SHERIFFS
OFFICE, et al.,

9

ORDER GRANTING MONTEREY
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
[Re: ECF 15]

Defendants.
10
This case involves the tragic death of inmate Antonio Martinez II (“Mr. Martinez”) who

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

died while in the custody of the Monterey County Jail. Mr. Martinez had a long and troubled

13

medical history before he arrived at the Jail, and during the two weeks preceding his death Mr.

14

Martinez’s medical condition deteriorated and he became very ill. Mr. Martinez was ultimately

15

rushed to the hospital by jail staff on January 21, 2017, but his life could not be saved. Mr.

16

Martinez’s children (“Plaintiffs”) now bring suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and several state law

17

causes of action, asserting that jail personnel failed to provide Mr. Martinez adequate medical

18

care, were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of his federal

19

constitutional rights, and breached duties owed to him under state law.

20

Before the Court is Defendants County of Monterey (“County”) and Monterey County

21

Sheriff’s Office’s (“Sheriff’s Office”) (collectively “Monterey Defendants”) motion to dismiss

22

Plaintiffs’ first, second, third and fourth causes of action in the Complaint for failure to state a

23

claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See ECF 15.1 The Court held a

24

hearing on the Monterey Defendants’ motion to dismiss on May 17, 2018. For the reasons that

25

follow as well as those stated on the record at the hearing, the Monterey Defendants’ motion to

26

dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

27
1

28

Defendant California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. (“CFMG”) filed an Answer to the
Complaint. ECF 16.

I.

1

LEGAL STANDARD
“A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a

2
3

claim upon which relief can be granted ‘tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.’” Conservation

4

Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d

5

729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001)). When determining whether a claim has been stated, the Court accepts

6

as true all well-pled factual allegations and construes them in the light most favorable to the

7

plaintiff. Reese v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 643 F.3d 681, 690 (9th Cir. 2011). However, the

8

Court need not “accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial

9

notice” or “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or
unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008).

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it “must contain sufficient factual

12

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

13

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A

14

claim is facially plausible when it “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

15

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
II.

16

DISCUSSION

17

As pled, the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint amount to a medical malpractice claim,

18

but do not form the basis of a civil rights action against the Monterey Defendants for deliberate

19

indifference.2 In the first cause of action for violation of the Eighth Amendment pursuant to 42

20

U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to provide

21

adequate medical care to prisoners, and were deliberately indifferent to the fact that Mr. Martinez

22

needed medical care when he was incarcerated, resulting in his death. See Compl. ¶ 34, ECF 1.
“The Eighth Amendment protects inmates from cruel and unusual punishment, which

23
24

includes the denial of medical care.” Conn v. City of Reno, 591 F.3d 1081, 1094 (9th Cir. 2009).

25

The Supreme Court has emphasized that, “[j]ust as a prisoner may starve if not fed, he or she may

26

suffer or die if not provided adequate medical care. A prison that deprives prisoners of basic

27
2

28

Plaintiffs do bring a medical malpractice claim against CFMG in their Fifth Cause of Action, but
that claim is not the subject of this motion to dismiss brought by the Monterey Defendants.
2

1

sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity

2

and has no place in civilized society.” Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 510–11 (2011). In order to

3

state a cognizable § 1983 claim, “a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to

4

evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. It is only such indifference that can

5

offend ‘evolving standards of decency’ in violation of the Eighth Amendment.” Estelle v. Gamble,

6

429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard,” and a showing of

7

medical malpractice or mere negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation

8

under the Eighth Amendment. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004).

9

Municipalities such as the Monterey Defendants are “persons” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
may be liable for causing a constitutional deprivation. Monell v. Department of Social Services,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). However, a municipality may not be sued under § 1983 solely because

12

an injury was inflicted by its employees or agents. Id. at 694. In this case, that means that the

13

Monterey Defendants do not take on responsibility for constitutional injuries inflicted by their

14

deputies. Instead, it is only when execution of a government’s policy or custom inflicts the injury

15

that the municipality as an entity is responsible. Id.

16

To bring a valid § 1983 claim against the Monterey Defendants for a violation of

17

Mr. Martinez’s Eighth Amendment rights based on inadequate medical care, Plaintiffs must

18

plausibly allege facts that the Monterey Defendants had a policy or practice that was the “moving

19

force” behind the alleged constitutional violation. 436 U.S. at 694. The Court is perplexed by

20

Plaintiffs’ current theory against the Monterey Defendants under § 1983, in part because the

21

Complaint does not name a single deputy who is alleged to have committed a constitutional

22

violation underlying the Monell claim. Moreover, the Court cannot draw a plausible inference that

23

the contract itself between the Monterey Defendants and CFMG was unconstitutional.

24

As stated on the record, Plaintiffs’ deliberate indifference claim under § 1983 against the

25

Monterey Defendants lacks factual specificity and requires amendment in order to proceed. For

26

similar reasons, Plaintiffs’ second, third, and fourth causes of action against the Monterey

27

Defendants under state law are deficient and require further factual pleading regarding the alleged

28

failure to summon medical care in this case.
3

1
2
3
4

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons as well as those stated on the record at the May 17, 2018

hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1)

LEAVE TO AMEND;

5
6

The Monterey Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED WITH

(2)

Plaintiffs shall file a First Amended Complaint on or before June 18, 2018.

7

Failure to meet the deadline to file an amended complaint or failure to cure

8

the deficiencies identified in this Order and at the May 17, 2018 hearing

9

will result in dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims against the Monterey
Defendants with prejudice.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Dated: May 17, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4