TYRELL CURTIS ERLEBACH, v. RAJ ENTERPRISES OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:18-CV-00173-MDH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
January 27, 2022
Before the Court are Defendants Carol Bruce‘s, Larry Church‘s, Georgia Hanigan‘s, Chad Huff‘s, Anne Marie Kelso‘s, Payette County‘s, Payette County Board of Commissioners‘, Payette County Sheriff‘s Office‘s, and Mark Shigeta‘s (collectively, “Payette County Defendants“) Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 184); Defendants Rostad GPS & Monitoring Services LLC‘s, Kim Rostad d.b.a K&K Treatment‘s, K&K Bail Bonds LLC d.b.a K&K Treatment‘s (collectively, “Rostad Defendants“) Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 188); and Defendant Dennis Stokes’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 191). For the reasons set forth herein, all Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 184, 188, 191) are GRANTED in their entireties.
BACKGROUND
In January of 2016, Plaintiff was arrested, and subsequently charged with several felonies, all occurring in Payette County. Bail was set at $200,000, and the magistrate at first appearance ordered Plaintiff, as a condition of bail, not to consume alcoholic beverages. Plaintiff was ordered to report to the Misdemeanor Probation Office. That office was administered by an individual,
On April 20, 2016, the district court issued a bench warrant for the arrest of Plaintiff, finding that there was probable cause to believe that Plaintiff had violated conditions of pretrial release. The court further ordered that bail be set in the amount of $30,000 on the bench warrant, and the court interlineated “or release in 72 hours in jail.” The Payette County booking sheet shows that Plaintiff was booked into the jail the same day, posted bond, and was out of jail in 25 minutes. On May 20, 2016, the district court exonerated bond after “being fully apprised of Defendant‘s objection to a positive alcohol test, as a false positive.”
Plaintiff‘s retained expert opines that Pinnacle Laboratories, the lab that analyzed Plaintiff‘s urine sample and created the false positive report, had several shortcomings:
- The cutoff level utilized by Pinnacle Laboratory was inappropriate to use as a tool to evaluate alcohol consumption and can lead to misinterpretation
- Pinnacle Laboratory did not report an error rate as commonly done by accredited laboratories
- The “corrected values” of 67.2 and 22.3 for EtG and EtS represents trace levels. These “levels” also represent values below the laboratory‘s instrument capabilities to produce credible results
- The chemical products utilized [by Plaintiff] will produce trace levels of EtG and EtS
- The reported levels are consistent with the association/contact of the described chemicals and can be misinterpreted as alcohol ingestion (i.e. false positive)
- At a minimum, 500 ng/ml or higher must be used for positive cut-off values for EtG and EtS levels to eliminate false positive interpretations
Plaintiff has brought claims against several defendants in his Amended Complaint (Doc. 128) stemming from the false positive result. Plaintiff against Payette County, individuals serving as its Board of Commissioners, the Payette County Sheriff‘s Office as well as the Payette County Sheriff individually and the former Payette County Prosecuting Attorney (collectively, “Payette County Defendants“). The basis for Plaintiff‘s lawsuit against the municipality and its decisionmakers is (1) negligence, and, (2)
Plaintiff furthermore brought claims against Dennis Stokes, an employee of Indianhead Resources, LLC, (“Indianhead“) which contracts with Payette County as an independent contractor to provide misdemeanor probation services for the County. Plaintiff brings (1) a negligence claim and (2) a
Lastly, Plaintiff brings suit against K & K Treatment; Rostad GPS & Monitoring Services, LLC; Kim Rostad, d.b.a. K & K Treatment; K & K Bail Bonds, LLC, d.b.a. K & K Treatment (collectively, “Rostad Defendants“) alleging negligence only.
A. Defendant Stokes
Defendant Stokes is the sole employee of Indianhead. Indianhead entered into a contract with Payette County (“County“) on May 1, 2015 to provide misdemeanor probation services. The contract renews automatically each fiscal year. Indianhead serves as an independent contractor for the County, and Stokes is not an employee of the County.
The report received by Defendant Stokes showed “positive” results for Ethyl Glucuronide (EtG) and Ethyl Sulfate (Ets). (Doc. 128-1, Ex. 1). There was no other information on the report that would have directed Stokes to read the “positive” results in any other way, nor was there any sort of chart or guide instructing how to further interpret any portion of the report. Id.
Soon after Stokes received a copy of the report that indicated Plaintiff tested positive for alcohol use, Stokes submitted a Failure to Comply with Court Order Affidavit (“Affidavit“) to the Court, which indicated that Plaintiff had failed to comply with his conditions of release as ordered by the Court. After Stokes submitted his Affidavit to the Court on April 19, 2016, the Court revoked Plaintiff‘s bond and issued a warrant for his arrest.
On May 17, 2016, Stokes received from Rostad a follow-up report from Pinnacle concerning the original subject sample. This follow-up report included an additional paragraph in the “comments” section (which had been blank on the original report) which indicated that the positive alcohol test could have been the result of other circumstances besides the consumption of alcohol. It stated:
FINAL REPORT – 5/10/2016
Negative ethyl alcohol results recovered by EIA screening. Positive ETG and ETS (ethanol metabolites) results recovered indicating exposure to ethyl alcohol within the past 72 hours. ETG and ETS results are to be considered non-forensic testing, for medical purposes only. Positive results may indicate ingestion of, or exposure to ethyl alcohol within the past 72 hours. These results will not differentiate between ethyl alcohol consumed from medications (over the counter cold or cough formulas) or from other sources. Positive ETG and ETS results may also indicate recent skin exposure to alcohol-containing hand sanitizers and/or disinfectants. Under certain conditions, ETG may also be produced in vitro (outside of the body in the sample container) by certain bacteria which may be present in the urine sample.
(Doc. 128-1, Ex. 3). After receiving a copy of Pinnacle‘s follow-up report, Stokes submitted that report with a follow-up Affidavit on May 17, 2016, indicating to the court that Pinnacle Laboratory had determined that Plaintiff‘s sample may have been a false positive. As a result of that affidavit, the court held a hearing on May 20, 2016. At the hearing, the court exonerated Plaintiff‘s bond and lifted the requirement that Plaintiff had to submit to drug and/or alcohol testing.
B. Rostad Defendants
Defendants K & K Treatment, Rostad GPS and Monitoring Services LLC; and K & K Bail Bonds LLC are all owned and controlled, in whole or in part, by Defendant Kim Rostad. Random drug and alcohol testing of Plaintiff was conducted by Rostad Defendants under a contract between Rostad and Payette County, through Payette County‘s agent Defendant Stokes/Indianhead or a third-party. (Doc. 128 at ¶ 64). Plaintiff provided a urine sample to Rostad on April 14, 2016. The sample was sent by Rostad Defendants to and evaluated by Pinnacle. At that time, Rostad used Pinnacle to analyze and report on drug/alcohol testing conducted by Rostad. On April 18, 2016, a report was sent to Rostad Defendants by Pinnacle indicating a positive result concerning alcohol. As noted above, that result was later determined to be a “false positive” or otherwise unreliable.
Pursuant to this statutory duty, on or about May 1, 2015, Payette County and Indianhead entered into a Contract for Misdemeanor Probation Services (“Contract“) which states that Indianhead will “provide active supervision of adults placed on supervised misdemeanor probation...perform all supervision duties for persons with pretrial release conditions as ordered by a judge in Payette County....” The Contract also states that Indianhead “is an independent contractor and is not an employee, servant, agent, partner, or joint venture of Payette County.” Payette County contracted with Rostad Defendants to conduct random drug and alcohol testing for the County through the County‘s agent Defendant Stokes/Indianhead, or third-party. Payette County had no contract with Pinnacle. Payette County Defendants had no other active role with respect to pretrial services or misdemeanor probation services.
STANDARD
One of the primary purposes of the summary judgment rule is to “isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (1986). Summary judgment is proper if the “movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Motions for summary judgment are governed by a shifting burden of proof under
Once the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine dispute as to a material fact actually exists. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-86, 106 S.Ct. 1348 (1986). In order to defeat summary judgment, the opposing party must establish the existence of a factual dispute that is both material and genuine. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Fortune Dynamic, Inc. v. Victoria‘s Secret Store Brand Mgmt., Inc., 618 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2010); Freecycle Sunnyvale v. Freecycle Network, 626 F.3d 509, 514 (9th Cir. 2010). If the non-moving party fails to do this, then “the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
The Ninth Circuit has emphasized that summary judgment may not be avoided merely because there is some purported factual dispute, but only when there is a “genuine issue of material fact.” Hanon v. Dataproducts, Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 500 (9th Cir. 1992). The Ninth Circuit has found that in order to resist a motion for summary judgment:
[T]he non-moving party (1) must make a showing sufficient to establish a genuine issue of fact with respect to any element for which it bears the burden of proof; (2)
must show that there is an issue that may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party; and (3) must come forward with more persuasive evidence than would otherwise be necessary when the factual context makes the non-moving party‘s claim implausible.
DISCUSSION
A. Federal Claims
a. Defendant Stokes
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Stokes violated Plaintiffs civil rights pursuant to
While Plaintiff included Stokes as a “Governmental Defendant” in his Amended Complaint, it is undisputed that Stokes serves as an independent contractor—through Indianhead Resources, LLC (“Indianhead“)—to provide misdemeanor probation services for Payette County (“County“). Payette County contracted with Rostad Defendants to conduct random drug and alcohol testing for the County through the County‘s agent Defendant Stokes/Indianhead, Stokes argues that because he is not an employee of the County, he did not act under the color of state law as required by
However, “[w]hile generally not applicable to private parties, a
The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendant Stokes likely was a “willing participant in joint action with the State or its agents,” in the course of his duties performing misdemeanor probation services for the district court. Kirtley, 326 F. 3d at 1092. However, even assuming Stokes is a proper party to a
The evidence is undisputed that Defendant Stokes received a copy of a drug/alcohol test and forwarded it to the Court. Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that would indicate that Stokes’ actions here violated Plaintiff‘s rights. Furthermore, while Plaintiff‘s expert described how Pinnacle may have erred in the course in creating its false positive report, Plaintiff provides no evidence that Stokes, as a pretrial services officer, failed to accurately communicate with the court based on the information available to him. Plaintiff‘s supports his allegations with mere argument, not fact. This is insufficient. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Fortune Dynamic, Inc., 618 F.3d at 1031; Freecycle Sunnyvale, 626 F.3d at 514. Plaintiff provides no reason Stokes should have doubted the accuracy of the initial test result and report from Pinnacle.
Defendant Stokes maintains that he, at all times relevant to this case, was acting on behalf of the court and/or as a judicial officer and is entitled to immunity. Plaintiff, as noted, maintains that Stokes did act under the color of state law through his actions with the court. It has been established that the functions of a deputy probation officer are an integral part of the judicial process so as to afford immunity from suit under the Civil Rights Act. Friedman v. Younger, 282 F. Supp. 710, 716 (1968). Specifically, a probation officer who prepares and submits a probation report in a criminal case is performing a ‘quasi-judicial’ function and is entitled to a similar, if not the same, immunity that is accorded to judges for acts done by them in the exercise of their judicial functions. Burkes, 433 F.2d at 319; see Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 157-58 (9th Cir. 1985) (probation officers do receive absolute immunity for preparing and submitting pre-sentence reports). The rationale is that when a probation officer prepares and submits a probation report on a defendant in a criminal case, such officer is performing a ‘quasi-judicial’ function, in that they
In this case, Defendant Stokes was ordered by the Court to supervise Plaintiff during Plaintiff‘s conditional release. Plaintiff was ordered by the Court to submit to drug and/or alcohol testing as a part of his conditions of his release. As part of his supervision duties, Defendant Stokes was to monitor Plaintiff‘s drug and/or alcohol test results and submit any positive result to the Court. When Defendant Stokes submitted the Failure to Comply with Court Order Affidavit (“Affidavit“) on April 19, 2016, Defendant Stokes was performing a “quasi-judicial” function in that he was submitting a positive drug and/or alcohol test report to the Court. See Friedman, 282 F.Supp. at 716. After Stokes submitted his Affidavit to the Court, the matter was entirely outside of his control, and any actions or inactions concerning the alcohol tests was wholly at the discretion of the district judge. It is undisputed that the decision to issue a bench warrant was made by the Court, not Defendant Stokes. Similarly, the Court Judge decided or determined the need for a second bond, not Defendant Stokes.
Plaintiff does not point to any language, cite any other law, or provide reasoning for why well-established case law, such as Demoran v. Witt, does not apply to the instant case. While Defendant Stokes was not a probation officer and his duties did not include preparing presentencing reports, Plaintiff ignores that “an official derives the appropriate degree of immunity not from his or her administrative designation, but by the function he or she performs.” Swift, 384 F.3d at 1188 (quoting Anderson, 714 F.2d at 908). Stokes performs analogous duties to the probation officer by submitting impartial factual reports to the court.
b. Payette County Defendants
Plaintiff has brought claims against Payette County, individuals serving as its Board of Commissioners, the Payette County Sheriff‘s Office as well as the Payette County Sheriff individually and the former Payette County Prosecuting Attorney. Plaintiff asserts a
Pursuant to the County‘s duty under
As with Defendant Stokes, discussed above, Plaintiff again fails to produce sufficient facts or evidence to support his argument that the County breached any alleged duty to Plaintiff. Plaintiff fails to show how Payette County did not comply with
Payette County also cannot be held liable in this case under the Monell doctrine. A municipality is liable under
A policy “generally implies a course of action consciously chosen from among various alternatives.” Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823 (1985). Municipal policies are typically intended to “establish fixed plans of action to be followed under similar circumstances consistently and over time.” Pembaur v City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480-81 (1986). Further, enforcement of state law does not, without adopting any particular policy of its own, give rise to
Plaintiff argues that the single contract between Payette County and Defendant Stokes/Indianhead represents the County‘s policy on its training and supervision of persons who are subject to pretrial alcohol and drug testing. Plaintiff‘s argument is tenuous at best. The drug testing pursuant to the pretrial release program was a court-run program, funded by Payette County as required by
Even if Payette County officials rather than court officials supervised the independent contractor, Plaintiff cannot establish deliberate indifference. As to a municipality, “the inadequacy of [training] may serve as the basis for
Under this standard, Plaintiff must allege facts to show that the Payette County Defendants “disregarded the known or obvious consequence that a particular omission in their training program would cause [county] employees to violate citizens’ constitutional rights.” Id. at 1159.
A “pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees is ordinarily necessary to demonstrate deliberate indifference for purposes of failure to train,” though there exists a “narrow range of circumstances [in which] a pattern of similar violations might not be necessary to show deliberate indifference.” Connick v. Thompson, 131 S.Ct. 1350, 1360-61 (2011). Considering neither Plaintiff nor Defendants point to any incident prior to Plaintiff‘s April 14, 2016, false positive that would suggest any negligence or wrongdoing on the part of Defendants Stokes or Rostad, nothing put the Payette County Defendants on “notice that a course of training is deficient in a particular respect,” nor that the absence of such a course “will cause violations of constitutional rights.” Id. Payette County Defendants were not faced with a pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees. Id. at 1360; Flores, 758 F.3d at 1159.
Nor does the County‘s alleged failure to train claim fall within the “narrow range of circumstances [in which] a pattern of similar violations might not be necessary to show deliberate
There is no basis from which to conclude that the alleged unconstitutional consequences of failing to train or supervise Stokes are so patently obvious that the Payette County Defendants were deliberately indifferent. Flores, 758 F.3d at 1159–60. Defendant Stokes contracted with the County to provide misdemeanor probation services. Stokes’ role involved directing bailees to Rostad for the collection of a urine sample. Stokes later received a completed report of the sample back from Rostad—after Pinnacle analyzed the sample and returned it to Rostad. Stokes simply reported the results of that report to the court.
Plaintiff points to no facts that would suggest Payette County Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a need to train or supervise Defendant Stokes. Plaintiff asserts that Stokes was unqualified. However, as noted above, there are no facts before the Court that indicate that Defendant Stokes’ actions were even the cause of Plaintiff‘s false positive and alleged constitutional deprivation. Stokes forwarded the lab results from Pinnacle exactly as they were received. As noted, there are no facts demonstrating that Defendants Stokes or Rostad had any previous incidents of producing false positives, negligence, or malpractice.
B. State Law Claims
Plaintiff brings state law claims of negligence against all Defendants. “The elements of a common law negligence action are (1) a duty, recognized by law, requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a causal connection between the defendant‘s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage.” Holdaway v. Broulim‘s Supermarket, 158 Idaho 606, 349 P.3d 1197 (2015), quoting Black Canyon Racquetball Club, Inc. v. Idaho First Nat. Bank, N.A., 119 Idaho 171, 175-76, 804 P.2d 900 904-05 (1991).
As with the federal claims discussed above, Plaintiff‘s facts and evidence—or lack thereof are woefully inadequate to create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the common law negligence claim Plaintiff asserts against all defendants. Plaintiff generally, and without factual support, argues that all defendants had a duty to Plaintiff and breached that duty. For the foregoing reasons, and the further reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden on summary judgment. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Fortune Dynamic,
a. Rostad Defendants
Plaintiff only brings a state law negligence claim against Rostad. Rostad Defendants played no role in testing Plaintiff‘s urine sample or publishing the results in any manner which was inconsistent with its contract with the County. There is nothing in the record, nor in Plaintiff‘s arguments, upon which one could reasonably infer that the Rostad Defendants failed to perform their responsibilities relating to the collection of Plaintiff‘s urine sample, relay of that sample to Pinnacle for testing, and subsequent relay of Pinnacle‘s results to Defendant Stokes/Indianhead. Moreover, the only evidence in the record suggests that it was Pinnacle‘s actions alone that led Plaintiff‘s alleged harm. From the evidence before the Court, Rostad Defendants had no reason to know that Pinnacle might act negligently nor did Rostad have any reason to doubt Pinnacle‘s credentials or ability to process samples Rostad Defendants sent to it. Therefore, summary judgment is appropriate, and summary judgment is granted in favor of Rostad Defendants.
b. Defendant Stokes
Plaintiff‘s negligence claim in his Amended Complaint fails to mention Defendant Stokes and fails to allege any specific wrongdoing by Stokes. Despite this, Plaintiff now argues that Defendant Stokes had a duty to Plaintiff to “not falsely report a violation of [his] release conditions.” (Doc. 214 at 7). Plaintiff‘s supports his allegations with mere argument, not fact. There is no evidence that Defendant Stokes falsely reported a violation of Plaintiff‘s release conditions to the court. Based on the available information, a report from a drug and alcohol testing facility indicating the presence of alcohol in Plaintiff‘s system, Defendant Stokes notified the Court of the results which would constitute a potential violation of Plaintiffs release orders.
c. Payette County Defendants
Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants Payette County, Payette County Sheriff‘s Office, Payette County Sheriff Chad Huff...had a non-delegable duty to Plaintiff Erlebach and other similarly situated individuals to exercise due care in the process of overseeing the administration, analysis and reporting the results of court-ordered drug/urine tests” and delegated that duty. (Doc. 107).
Plaintiff‘s argument is purely that the Payette County Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff relating to pretrial services for no other reason than that
The responsibility for Plaintiffs false positive, if any, lies with former defendant Pinnacle, considering that Pinnacle is the lab that actually produced the report at issue. As noted, Plaintiff‘s arguments that Rostad Defendants and/or Defendant Stokes were negligent with respect to the false positive fail. Similarly, Plaintiff cannot establish that the Payette County Defendants breached any alleged duty—an alleged failure to train and supervise Defendant Stokes had no effect on Pinnacle‘s lab report at issue, and any training or supervision would not have altered the outcome of Plaintiff‘s false positive. Plaintiff‘s argument for the purported existence of a duty owed by Payette County and any alleged breach of that duty is not supported by any evidence. Plaintiff attempts to support his claim with mere argument and allegations, which is not sufficient
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants Carol Bruce‘s, Larry Church‘s, Georgia Hanigan‘s, Chad Huff‘s, Anne Marie Kelso‘s, Payette County‘s, Payette County Board of Commissioners‘, Payette County Sheriff‘s Office‘s, and Mark Shigeta‘s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 184); Defendants Rostad GPS & Monitoring Services LLC‘s, Kim Rostad d.b.a K&K Treatment‘s, K&K Bail Bonds LLC d.b.a K&K Treatment‘s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 188); and Defendant Dennis Stokes’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 191) are GRANTED in their entireties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 27, 2022
/s/ Douglas Harpool
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
United States District Judge