Marsh v. County of San Diego
680 F.3d 1148
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Marsh sues after her son Phillip Buell’s autopsy photos were copied by former deputy district attorney Coulter and disseminated to the press.
- Coulter copied sixteen autopsy photos during his tenure and later kept one as a memento, eventually sharing it with media.
- Marsh asserts §1983 violations under color of state law, alleging a Fourteenth Amendment due process privacy right over death images.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Ninth Circuit reviews de novo.
- The court analyzes whether a federal right exists, whether it is clearly established, and whether state action and immunity doctrines apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a federal right to control death images exists under substantive due process | Marsh asserts a constitutionally protected privacy right in death images | No constitutional right; rights arise from common law or state law only | Yes; the right is protected under substantive due process. |
| Whether California § 129 creates a state-created liberty interest protected by due process | Section 129 creates a liberty interest in death images | Statutory privacy does not guarantee a federal constitutional right | Yes; section 129 can create a constitutional liberty interest. |
| Whether Coulter acted under color of state law for §1983 liability | Coulter’s official status extends liability after retirement | Post-retirement conduct not state action; no under-color-of-state-law | No; Coulter’s post-retirement acts were not under color of state law. |
| Whether Coulter is protected by qualified immunity | Right was clearly established by Favish and related cases | Right not clearly established at time of conduct; reasonable officer could err | Qualified immunity applies; right not clearly established at the time. |
| Whether the County is liable under Monell for a policy or training deficiency | County policy or failure to train caused the violation | Single employee conduct insufficient for Monell; no widespread practice | Monell claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carey v. Population Servs. Int'l, 431 U.S. 678 (U.S. 1977) (privacy right includes avoiding disclosure of personal matters and family decisions)
- Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1977) (two privacy interests: avoiding disclosure and autonomy in decisionmaking)
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1973) (privacy extends to family and child-rearing decisions)
- Favish v. Doc. of Cnty. of Sonoma, 541 U.S. 157 (U.S. 2004) (death-image privacy; public disclosure can invade family privacy)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (fundamental liberty interest in parental decisionmaking)
- Catsouras v. Dept. of Cal. Highway Patrol, 181 Cal.App.4th 856 (Cal. App. 2010) (recognizes a privacy right in death images but not clearly established federal right)