Shelley v. County of San Joaquin
996 F. Supp. 2d 921
E.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiffs allege the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department exhumed Jo Ann Hobson’s remains in an unconstitutional manner and damaged/destroyed them during the process.
- Plaintiffs claim the digging was rapid, intrusive, and observed by the decedent’s family and media, resulting in mutilation and commingling of remains with other victims’ remains.
- Plaintiffs allege the remains were held and not released for burial for months before being turned over for cremation, with portions potentially missing.
- Forensic review allegedly showed multiple individuals in the remains and DNA evidence identified one bone as belonging to another person, Kimberly Billy.
- The Court previously dismissed damages claims against Sheriff Moore in his individual capacity with prejudice based on qualified immunity and dismissed state-law claims for failure to plead CA TCA compliance; amendment was allowed in part.
- Plaintiffs amended the complaint to allege Moore acted as a policymaker; the court now addresses procedural due process, substantive due process, and Monell claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process property interest | Shelley asserts a property interest in the remains under California law. | Defendants contend no property interest exists in dead body remains absent statutory rights. | Plaintiff's procedural due process claim is dismissed; no cognizable property interest. |
| Substantive due process—family integrity | Defendants’ conduct shocked the conscience and violated family integrity rights. | Defendants argue no privacy/right to family integrity claim since not framed as privacy right. | Plaintiff's substantive due process claim survives; conduct likely shocked conscience. |
| Monell liability against County | Moore was a policymaker; county liable for his actions under Monell. | Defendants argue insufficient proof of policy or final policymaker authority. | Monell claim survives; Sheriff Moore deemed a policymaker; official-capacity dismissal redundant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (defines property interests as vested by state law, not Constitution)
- Newman v. Sathyavaglswaran, 287 F.3d 786 (9th Cir.2002) (recognizes procedural due process property interest in corneas under anatomical gift act)
- WTC Families for a Proper Burial v. City of N.Y., 567 F.Supp.2d 529 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (remains vs. burial rights; quasi-property right but not ordinary property)
- Gobel v. Maricopa County, 867 F.2d 1201 (9th Cir.1989) (final authority to establish municipal policy for Monell inquiry)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986) (single decision by final policymaker can trigger Monell liability)
- Moore v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 51 Cal.3d 120 (Cal. 1990) (limits property rights in human tissues; sui generis regulation of remains)
- Enos v. Snyder, 131 Cal. 68 (Cal. 1900) (no property in a dead body absent statutory provisions)
- Sinai Temple v. Kaplan, 54 Cal.App.3d 1103 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976) (quasi-property right to possession for burial purposes)
- Evanston Ins. Co. v. Legacy of Life, Inc., 370 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. 2012) (Texas adopts quasi-property rights in remains; relevance to California context)
- Colavito v. N.Y. Organ Donor Network, Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 43 (N.Y. 2006) (no common-law property right in a dead body; limitation on claims)