Lum v. County of San Joaquin, 756 F. Supp. 2d 1243

Plaintiffs Jerry Lum and Dorothea Timmons sue the County of San Joaquin, City of Lathrop, and multiple officers under §1983 and state law for decedent Jeremy Lum's death after release from jail; decedent had bipolar disorder and recent behavioral symptoms.
Decedent was arrested around July 9, 2009 on a kickout public intoxication charge despite no alcohol in his system; he was booked into San Joaquin County Jail and released six hours later without comprehensive medical/psychiatric evaluation.
Decedent suffered a foot laceration, was disoriented, had vomiting and hallucinations in custody, but jail staff did not obtain medical or psychiatric treatment before release.
Decedent vanished the same day and was found dead on July 12, 2009 in the San Joaquin River; coroner attributed death to accidental drowning with MDMA and orphenadrine intoxication; no prescribed meds detected.
Plaintiffs allege municipal liability theories for unlawful arrest, ADA discrimination, and negligent/ wrongful death due to failure to address medical needs and to safeguard decedent after custody.
Defendants move to dismiss various claims and standing; the court reserves ruling on some issues and grants leave to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether City liability can be established under §1983 for unlawful arrest	Lum/ family plead final policy-maker authority by City sergeants	City lacks a predicate policy or final policymaker link to the arrest	Claim survives 1983 municipal liability theory; dismissal denied; leave to amend if further facts support policy
ADA applicability to arrests and who may be liable	ADA applies to arrests and to actions of public entities; both theories viable	ADA does not apply to individual officers and some courts limit applicability to arrests	ADA claims denied as to individual officers; City liability preserved; court DENIED as to City, GRANTED as to officers
Whether California immunities bar the wrongful death/negligence claim	Special relationship creates duty; immunities do not shield alleged failure to provide care	Immunity under Govt. Code sections 845.8, 846, 855.6, 855.8 bars such claims	Immunity defenses partially sustained; denial to issues about failure to diagnose; some immunity noted but duty to provide care remains; leave to amend
Whether plaintiffs have standing to sue as decedent's successor in interest	§377.32 affidavits filed; standing established	Standing unresolved without affidavit	Standing deemed satisfied; motion denied

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (two-step plausibility pleading standard)
Board of County Comm'rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (municipal liability requires policy/custom or ratification)
Giraldo v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 168 Cal. App. 4th 231 (2008) (jailer-prisoner special relationship creates duty of care)
Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2002) (ADA can reach arrests; parole decisions not exempted)
Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1999) (ADA's program/activities broad interpretation)
Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (ADA scope broad; includes police activities)
Gohier v. Enright, 186 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 1999) (arrests can be ADA covered activities)
Yeskey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 524 U.S. 206 (1998) (ADA statutory text not contingent on voluntariness)
Johnson v. State of California, 69 Cal.2d 782 (1968) (845.8 immunity distinguished between basic policy and ministerial acts)
Lehto v. City of Oxnard, 171 Cal. App. 3d 285 (1985) (846 immunity and public liability principles)