James Steinle v. City and County of S.F.
919 F.3d 1154
9th Cir.2019Background
- Kathryn Steinle was killed in 2015 by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an undocumented repeat felon who had been released from San Francisco Sheriff’s Department custody; ICE had earlier sent a detainer requesting 48-hour notice of release.
- Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi issued a March 13, 2015 memorandum (the "Memo") limiting what jail staff could share with ICE—prohibiting non-public disclosures such as release dates unless authorized by counsel or a court order.
- Plaintiffs (Steinle’s parents) sued the City and Sheriff for general negligence (among other claims), alleging the Memo caused the Sheriff’s Department not to notify ICE and thus led to Steinle’s death.
- The district court dismissed the negligence claim as barred by California discretionary-immunity law (Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 820.2, 815.2(b)); final judgment was entered and Plaintiffs appealed only the general negligence dismissal.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the issuance of the Memo was a protected discretionary/planning-level policy decision under California law and that the district court properly considered the Memo on the Rule 12(b)(6) record via the incorporation-by-reference doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Memo (and withholding release-date info) is protected by California discretionary immunity | Steinle: the Sheriff’s actions were ministerial or otherwise not discretionary, so immunity doesn’t apply | City: Memo was a planning-level policy decision by the Sheriff entitled to discretionary immunity under Cal. Gov’t Code § 820.2 | Held: Memo issuance was discretionary/planning-level and immune under § 820.2; withholding info is part of that protected act |
| Whether the court could decide immunity on a motion to dismiss and consider the Memo | Steinle: factual disputes and Memo accuracy preclude resolution on 12(b)(6) | City: Memo forms the basis of the claim and may be considered under incorporation by reference | Held: Court properly decided immunity at motion to dismiss and permissibly considered the Memo under incorporation by reference |
| Whether federal statutes (8 U.S.C. §§ 1373, 1644) compelled sharing of release-date information | Steinle: §§ 1373/1644 require state/local disclosure of immigration-related info including release dates | City: statutory text does not mention release dates; those statutes do not bar the local restriction at issue | Held: Statutory text unambiguous—§§ 1373/1644 do not require disclosure of local release dates; they do not strip Sheriff of discretion here |
| Whether state/local laws or CPRA, Health & Safety Code, or Charter provisions deprived the Sheriff of discretion to issue the Memo | Steinle: various California statutes, local code, and CPRA/§11369 mandated cooperation or record disclosure | City: cited provisions do not mandate disclosure of release dates or do not apply (e.g., CPRA is about records requests; §11369 inapplicable) | Held: Plaintiffs’ statutory and local-law arguments fail to show the Sheriff lacked discretion; none compelled the specific disclosures alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 447 P.2d 352 (Cal. 1968) (distinguishes planning-level policy decisions from operational/ministerial acts for discretionary-immunity analysis)
- Caldwell v. Montoya, 897 P.2d 1320 (Cal. 1995) (defines discretionary immunity as protecting basic policy decisions and requires conscious balancing of risks and advantages)
- County of Sacramento v. Superior Court, 503 P.2d 1382 (Cal. 1972) (ministerial implementation of correctional programs cannot be isolated from discretionary program judgments)
- Gonzalez v. United States, 814 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal on discretionary-immunity grounds at motion to dismiss)
- Carrico v. City & County of San Francisco, 656 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2011) (leave to amend properly denied where amendment would be futile due to existing immunity)