493 F.Supp.3d 890
E.D. Cal.2019Background
- On June 27–28, 2016, pretrial detainee Kimberly Morrissey-Scalia fell from a top bunk, hit her head, and was briefly examined twice by Lerdo Facility nurse Rowena Blakely. Blakely ordered a low bunk and a physician follow-up but did not perform a formal neurological exam, ask key questions, or call a physician.
- Several hours after the first exam, Scalia was found unconscious with vomiting and altered mental status; Blakely completed a hospital referral that omitted critical observations. EMS transported her to Kern Medical Center where a CT revealed a large acute subdural hematoma; she underwent surgery but died on July 1, 2016. Autopsy attributed death to blunt head injury.
- Plaintiff John Scalia (individually and as successor-in-interest) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (deliberate indifference), California Bane Act, and state tort theories against Kern County, Kern County Hospital Authority (KCHA), Nurse Blakely, and others. Defendants moved for summary judgment.
- Key factual disputes include the adequacy of Blakely’s exams, whether earlier treatment would have prevented death, and whether KCHA had any role or policy causally connected to the injury (KCHA assumed infirmary employment on July 1, 2016).
- Court disposition: summary judgment GRANTED in part and DENIED in part — qualified immunity denied as to Nurse Blakely on the § 1983 deliberate-indifference claim; Monell claim against KCHA dismissed; Bane Act and punitive damages claims survived in relevant respects; certain claims/statutory immunities resolved in KCHA’s favor and some individual-capacity claims by John Scalia were dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nurse Blakely is entitled to qualified immunity for alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under § 1983 | Scalia argues Blakely made intentional decisions (brief exams, no neuro exam, no physician consult, returning her to a cell) that were objectively unreasonable and caused delay in diagnosis/treatment | Defendants argue Blakely reasonably performed duties and are entitled to qualified immunity | Denied: viewed in plaintiff’s favor, triable disputes exist; a reasonable jury could find deliberate indifference and the right was clearly established |
| Whether KCHA is liable under Monell for policies/customs that caused Scalia’s injury | Scalia contends post-event KCHA actions and investigatory failures support a Monell claim or ratification | KCHA argues it was not employer/supervisor at the time of the injury (assumed infirmary employment July 1), so its policies could not have caused the harm | Granted for KCHA: no triable Monell claim because KCHA was not the employer or policymaker at the time of the events |
| Whether the Bane Act claim applies to Blakely (intent requirement) | Scalia asserts Blakely’s reckless disregard for medical needs satisfies Cornell’s specific-intent/reckless-disregard standard under the Bane Act | Defendants argue absence of threats, intimidation, or specific intent required for Bane Act liability | Denied: triable fact exists whether Blakely acted with reckless disregard; the right was clearly applicable, so Bane Act claim survives |
| Whether punitive damages, KCHA statutory immunities, and individual-capacity claims should be adjudicated | Scalia seeks punitive damages and opposes immunities; he sues both individually and as successor-in-interest | Defendants seek summary judgment on punitive damages, invoke Cal. Gov. Code immunities (e.g., § 844.6, § 845.6), and argue John Scalia lacks individual standing for detainee rights | Mixed: punitive damages claim survives (triable reckless indifference); KCHA entitled to certain statutory immunities (summary judgment granted on specific state claims and as to KCHA for Third and Sixth Causes); John Scalia’s individual-capacity claims (except professional negligence) are dismissed — he may proceed only as successor-in-interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity standard)
- Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir.) (pretrial detainee deliberate-indifference framework)
- Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir.) (objective standard for pretrial-detainee medical indifference)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (pretrial detainee standard considerations)
- Cornell v. City & County of San Francisco, 17 Cal. App. 5th 766 (Cal. Ct. App.) (Bane Act specific-intent/reckless-disregard test)
- McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir.) (medical deliberate indifference principles)
- Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800 (9th Cir.) (punitive damages standard under § 1983)
- Ortiz v. City of Imperial, 884 F.2d 1312 (9th Cir.) (nurse liability for disregarding head-injury complications)