Scalia v. Cnty. of Kern
308 F. Supp. 3d 1064
E.D. Cal.2018Background
- Decedent (59) fell from a top bunk in Kern County Lerdo jail on June 27, 2016, struck her head, could not ambulate, was seen briefly by KCHA nurse Rowena Blakely, and was cleared to return to housing without physician evaluation or diagnostic tests.
- Decedent fell again within ~24 hours, became vomiting and unconscious, was then transported to the hospital, underwent emergency surgery, was placed on life support, and died July 1, 2016.
- Plaintiff (husband) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (deliberate indifference) against Blakely and Monell claims against Kern County Hospital Authority (KCHA), and asserted state-law claims: Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1), failure to summon medical care (Gov. Code § 845.6), negligence/premises liability, and requests for punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
- KCHA and Blakely moved to dismiss several claims; the court resolved whether (a) a pretrial-detainee medical deliberate indifference claim is governed by an objective standard post-Castro/Kingsley, (b) Monell failure-to-train/inaction claims survive, (c) Bane Act coercion must be independent from the underlying constitutional violation, and (d) § 845.6 applies.
- Court: denied dismissal of § 1983 deliberate indifference claim against Blakely; denied Monell dismissal as to KCHA; denied Bane Act survival claim (but dismissed Plaintiff’s individual Bane Act claim without leave); granted leave to amend on § 845.6 and negligence (and dismissed premises liability without leave); denied dismissal of punitive damages and attorneys’ fees prayers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Standard for pretrial-detainee deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (subjective vs objective) | Castro/Kingsley require an objective recklessness-like standard; Blakely acted with reckless disregard by failing to evaluate for head trauma | Defendants urged traditional subjective deliberate-indifference standard | Court adopted an objective test (Castro/Kingsley reasoning applied), found FAC plausibly pleads serious need and objectively reckless response; § 1983 claim vs Blakely survives |
| 2. Monell liability for KCHA (failure to train/inaction) | FAC alleges KCHA failed to train nurses re: head/brain trauma and provided insufficient resources/policies, showing deliberate indifference | Defendants said allegations are boilerplate, no specific pattern or policymaker acts pleaded | Court held FAC alleges specific policies/practices and deliberate indifference sufficient to survive dismissal |
| 3. Bane Act coercion element (must be independent from underlying violation?) | Deliberate indifference is intentional/coercive conduct sufficient under Bane; coercion need not be separate | Defendants relied on Shoyoye line: coercion must be independent from inherent coercion in detention-type claims | Court found Cornell persuasive: coercion need not be independent; deliberate indifference can satisfy Bane Act; survival claim survives, Plaintiff’s individual Bane Act claim dismissed without leave to amend |
| 4. Gov. Code § 845.6 (failure to summon immediate medical care) | Plaintiff argued Blakely effectively failed to summon/obtain immediate care by clearing Decedent and not ordering tests or physician consult | Defendants argued care was summoned and alleged deficiencies are medical malpractice, not § 845.6 liability | Court followed Castaneda/Nelson: § 845.6 applies narrowly to failure to summon, not to alleged deficits in care once summoned; § 845.6 claim dismissed with leave to amend |
| 5. Negligence and premises liability (medical vs ordinary negligence) | Pleads negligence/ premises liability; alternatively pleads ordinary negligence where medical negligence may not apply | Defendants said Flowers forbids parallel ordinary and professional negligence arising from same facts; no premises allegations | Court dismissed premises liability without leave; general negligence dismissed with leave to amend (may plead alternatives but facts now suggest medical-negligence focus) |
| 6. Punitive damages & attorneys’ fees prayers | Plaintiff seeks punitive damages (§ 1983 & state claims) and statutory attorneys’ fees | Defendants moved to dismiss punitive damages and state-fee prayers (argued statutory prefiling requirements) | Court denied dismissal of punitive damages (deliberate indifference/reckless standard supports punitive relief) and denied striking fee prayers (1021.5 and § 1988 / § 52.1 fee claims remain; § 425.13 prefiling for punitive damages in medical malpractice held inapplicable in federal forum) |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (§ 1983 is procedural vehicle for constitutional claims)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires policy/custom or deliberate indifference)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (U.S. 2015) (pretrial-detainee excessive-force claims judged by objective standard)
- Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (applied Kingsley reasoning to failure-to-protect; discussed objective standard and recklessness-like liability)
- Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006) (addressed scope of Gov. Code § 845.6 in Ninth Circuit opinion)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (U.S. 2011) (pattern of violations ordinarily required to show municipal deliberate indifference in failure-to-train claims)
- Castaneda v. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 212 Cal. App. 4th 1051 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (§ 845.6 is narrow; failures after care is summoned are malpractice, not § 845.6)
- Cornell v. City & County of San Francisco, 17 Cal. App. 5th 766 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (Bane Act coercion need not be independent from underlying constitutional violation; intentionality standard explained)
- Shoyoye v. County of Los Angeles, 203 Cal. App. 4th 947 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (held coercion independent-from-inherent-coercion is required in overdetention context)
- Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2005) (punitive damages under § 1983 available for reckless or callous indifference)
- Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2010) (limits use of Rule 12(f) to strike substantive relief; motion to dismiss preferable)