Shelley v. County of San Joaquin
954 F. Supp. 2d 999
E.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiffs allege federal constitutional and California tort claims against the County of San Joaquin and Sheriff Moore for exhumation of Jo Ann Hobson's remains.
- In 2012, authorities exhumed Hobson’s body after information from the Speed Freak Killers; plaintiffs allege the back hoe excavation and continued digging after bones appeared.
- Plaintiffs claim the remains were destroyed, crushed, and commingled with other victims, and that the County delayed releasing proper remains for burial.
- Plaintiffs’ daughter’s remains reportedly misidentified; Dr. Bartelink’s evaluation suggested multiple individuals were in the same remains and DNA matched another individual.
- Plaintiffs sue for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due process violations and state-law negligence and emotional distress; defendants seek dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Court addresses qualified immunity and Monell liability, and notes California Tort Claims Act compliance for state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore in his individual capacity is entitled to qualified immunity | Plaintiffs had a protected property interest in remains; right clearly established | No clearly established right; qualified immunity should apply | Granted in part; individual claim dismissed for lack of clearly established right |
| Whether the § 1983 Monell claims against the County and Moore in official capacity survive | County had policy or custom of mishandling remains | Plaintiff failed to allege a policy or custom | Dismissed with leave to amend |
| Whether California state-law claims are barred by failure to comply with the California Tort Claims Act | Claims should proceed | Must allege timely Tort Claims Act compliance | Dismissed with leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Newman v. Sathyavaglswaran, 287 F.3d 786 (9th Cir.2002) (limits of next-of-kin property interests in remains; corneas context)
- Enos v. Snyder, 131 Cal. 68 (Cal. 1900) (no property interest in a dead body under California law)
- Moore v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 51 Cal.3d 120 (Cal. 1990) (discusses property interests in human tissue; sui generis context)
- Perryman v. County of Los Angeles, 153 Cal.App.4th 1189 (Cal.App.4th 2007) (California authority conflicting on property interests in remains; distinguish Newman)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (qualified immunity requires two-prong test; clearly established law)
- al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (S. Ct. 2011) (two-prong qualified immunity analysis; clearly established standard)
- Krainski v. Nevada ex rel. Bd. of Trustees, 616 F.3d 963 (9th Cir.2010) (clearly established law analysis for qualified immunity)