Richardson v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 9 — 10 SHEILA RICHARDSON, and others, Case No. 22-cv-06137-NC 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING 12 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO 13 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF AMEND CORRECTIONS AND 14 REHABILITATION (CDCR), and Re: ECF 10 others, — 15 — Defendants. — 16 — 17 This civil rights action arises out of the suicide of Adron Adams, Jr. during his 18 incarceration. Plaintiffs Sheila Richardson and Adron Adams, Sr. filed this action as 19 successors in interest, alleging the state entities and individuals overseeing the Decedent’s 20 imprisonment knew of his unstable mental health conditions, yet failed to prevent his 21 death. Plaintiffs, however, have failed to allege sufficient facts to support these claims. 22 Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Adron Adams, Jr. (“Decedent”) was an inmate at Defendant Salinas Valley State 25 Prison (“SVSP”), which is overseen by Defendant California Department of Corrections 26 and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) (collectively “State Entities”). ECF 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 4. 27 Decedent suffered from various mental health conditions, including “schizoaffective 1 suicide.” Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiffs assert the correctional staff, including supervisors, guards and 2 jail medical professionals identified as Defendant Does 1-10, were aware of Decedent’s 3 mental health conditions, as well as his symptoms of self-harm and suicidal ideation. Id. ¶ 4 25-26. Defendant Does 7-10 are further delineated as managerial employees. Id. ¶ 11. 5 Despite their purported knowledge, Decedent fashioned a noose and hanged himself in his 6 prison cell. Id. ¶ 28. He was pronounced dead on January 30, 2021. Id. 7 Plaintiffs’ attorney submitted a claim for damages to the California Government 8 Claims Program. Id. ¶ 19; see also ECF 10, Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Ex. A. 1 9 The claim was received on August 3, 2021. RJN, Ex. A at 6. Plaintiffs’ claims were 10 subsequently rejected by the Government Claims Program in a letter dated December 29, 11 2021. Id. at 12. 12 On October 18, 2022, Decedent’s parents, Sheila Richardson and Adron Adams, Sr. 13 (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Defendants. Plaintiffs alleged four causes of action: (1) 14 violation of Decedent’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Does 1-6 for 15 deprivation of necessary medical care; (2) violation of Decedent’s civil rights under § 1983 16 against Does 1-6 for deprivation of familial relationship; (3) Monell liability under § 1983 17 against the State Entities and Does 7-10; and (4) wrongful death against all Defendants. 18 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the entire complaint. ECF 10. All parties have 19 consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c). ECF 9, 11. 20 II. LEGAL STANDARD 21 A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal — 22 — 1 Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of a government claim letter — 23 — submitted by Plaintiffs (Claim No. 21006273), and subsequent rejection letter from the California Department of General Services, attached as Exhibit A to Defendants’ Request — 24 — for Judicial Notice. ECF 10-1. The Court GRANTS this request because these documents are public records relevant to Defendants’ motion and because these documents are not — 25 — subject to reasonable dispute because they can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) (“court — 26 — may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it ... can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be — 27 — questioned.”); Anderson v. Ferguson, No. 20-CV-04368-HSG, 2022 WL 767191 , at *2 1 sufficiency of a complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). “To 2 survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 3 true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 4 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). When 5 reviewing a 12(b)(6) motion, a court “must accept as true all factual allegations in the 6 complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” Retail 7 Prop. Trust v. United Bd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 768 F.3d 938, 945 (9th Cir. 8 2014). A court, however, need not accept as true “allegations that are merely conclusory, 9 unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Secs. 10 Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008). A claim is facially plausible when it “allows 11 the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 12 alleged.” Id. If a court grants a motion to dismiss, leave to amend should be granted 13 unless the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts. Lopez v. 14 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). 15 III. DISCUSSION 16 A. Plaintiffs’ § 1983 Claims Against Does 1-6 17 Federal law permits an individual to bring a claim against state or local officials for 18 the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and 19 [federal] laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Plaintiffs raise two causes of action under § 1983 20 against Defendant Does 1-6. Both claims, however, suffer from the same factual 21 infirmities. 22 1. Deprivation of Necessary Medical Care Claim 23 First, Plaintiffs allege Defendant Does 1-6 displayed deliberate indifference to 24 Decedent’s mental health conditions, thus contributing to his death. Compl. ¶ 32. The 25 government has an “obligation to provide medical care for those whom it is punishing by 26 incarceration,” and failure to meet that obligation can constitute an Eighth Amendment 27 violation cognizable under § 1983. Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 1 inmate – including the deprivation of a serious medical need – violates the Eighth 2 Amendment.” Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015). The “deliberate 3 indifference” standard is a subjective, two-step inquiry requiring (1) the plaintiff to show 4 “the risk was obvious or provide other circumstantial or direct evidence that the prison 5 officials were aware of the substantial risk” to the inmate, and (2) that plaintiff shows there 6 was no reasonable justification for exposing the inmate to the risk. Lemire v. California 7 Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1078 (9th Cir. 2013). 8 Here, Plaintiffs’ claim of deliberate indifference fails to surpass the first step. The 9 complaint does not appear to allege Decedent’s suicidal tendencies were sufficiently 10 obvious to provide notice to Does 1-6. Instead, Plaintiffs allege Does 1-6 not only knew 11 Decedent was suffering from mental health issues, but also knew he was manifesting 12 symptoms of self-harm and suicidal ideation the day of his death. See Compl. ¶¶ 31-32. 13 However, Plaintiffs fail to support these allegations beyond bare, conclusory statements. 14 Plaintiffs fail to point to any direct or circumstantial evidence that Does 1-6 knew anything 15 about Decedent’s mental health conditions, let alone his symptoms on the day of his death. 16 Without more, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss this claim with leave to 17 amend. 18 2. Loss of Familial Association Claim 19 Second, Plaintiffs allege Does 1-6 violated the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving 20 them of the Decedent’s companionship. Compl. ¶ 45. A plaintiff asserting a claim for 21 deprivation of their right to familial association under § 1983 must show the official’s 22 conduct “shocks the conscience.” Porter v. Osborn, 546 F.3d 1131, 1137 (9th Cir. 2008). 23 A plaintiff can show that an official’s conduct “shocks the conscience” by showing 24 “deliberate indifference” or a “purpose to harm.” Id. The “deliberate indifference” test 25 applies “only when actual deliberation is practical.” Id. (citing County of Sacramento v. 26 Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 851 (1998)). 27 As with the previous claim, Plaintiffs assert that the “deliberate indifference” 1 follows that Plaintiffs also fail to show deliberate indifference with respect to this claim. 2 Without deliberate indifference, Plaintiffs cannot show the actions of Does 1-6 shock the 3 conscience. Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ familial 4 associations claim with leave to amend. 5 B. Plaintiffs’ Monell Claim Against Does 7-10 6 Plaintiffs allege the State Entities and Does 7-10 failed to adequately train its 7 employees on “the provision of medical/mental health attention, including inter alia, 8 suicide prevention.” Compl. ¶ 53. As discussed in more detail below, this claim is barred 9 with respect to the State Entities under sovereign immunity, thus leaving Does 7-10. 10 A Monell claim permits liability under § 1983 against a local government for their 11 unconstitutional official policies or practices. Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 , 60, 131 12 (2011). Monell does not concern liability of individuals acting under color of state law. 13 Guillory v. Orange Cnty., 731 F.2d 1379, 1382 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Robles v. Aguilar, 14 No. 16-cv-07038 MEJ, 2017 WL 950966 , at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2017) (holding 15 plaintiff cannot state a Monell claim against police chief as an individual defendant). 16 Plaintiffs bring their Monell claim against Does 7-10 in their supervisory rule for 17 failing to adequately train their subordinates on providing medical/mental health care. 18 Compl. ¶ 54. Monell is an improper vehicle for claims against individual defendants like 19 Does 7-10. Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Monell 20 claims against Does 7-10 without leave to amend because any amendment concerning 21 individual defendants would be futile. 22 C. Plaintiffs’ Claims Against State Entities Are Barred by Sovereign Immunity — 23 — Defendants assert Plaintiffs are precluded from suing the state and its agencies — 24 — under the sovereign immunity doctrine. The Eleventh Amendment dictates that the — 25 — “judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or — 26 — equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another — 27 — state.” Absent waiver by the state or congressional override, “agencies of the state are 1 immune from private damage actions or suits for injunctive relief brought in federal court.” 2 Brown v. California Dep't of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009). The California 3 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as well as state prisons like Salinas Valley 4 State Prison, are considered agencies of the state. See Palismo v. California Dep’t of 5 Corr., 145 F. App’x 215, 216 (9th Cir. 2005) (“the CDC is a state agency entitled to 6 sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment”); Righetti v. California Dep’t of 7 Corr. Salinas Valley State Prison, No. 03-cv-00780 SBA, 2003 WL 23857821 , at *9 (N.D. 8 Cal. Aug. 6, 2003) (plaintiff precluded from suing Salinas Valley State Prison directly, “as 9 that is the equivalent of suing the state”). 10 In this case, Plaintiffs bring both a Monell and state wrongful death claim against 11 CDCR and SVSP. Compl. ¶¶ 56, 67. Both entities are clearly state agencies subject to 12 sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs do not allege the state waived its Eleventh Amendment 13 immunity. Moreover, the opposition papers don’t contest that both entities are immunized 14 from Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim. See ECF 16 at 6. 15 Nevertheless, Plaintiffs maintain the state entities are vicariously liable for wrongful 16 death by operation of California Government Code § 845.6. Id. at 8. California has 17 waived its sovereign immunity to tort claims brought in state court, including liability 18 stemming from an employee’s failure to provide medical care to prisoners. See Cal. Gov’t 19 Code § 945. However, this does not constitute a waiver of Eleventh Amendment 20 immunity for tort claims brought in federal court. BV Engineering v. Univ. of California, 21 Los Angeles, 858 F.2d 1394, 1396 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Kirchmann v. Lake Elsinore 22 Unified Sch. Dist., 83 Cal. App. 4th 1098, 1103 (2000) (“the consent to suit contained in 23 the act (Gov. Code, § 945) is not a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity”). Taken 24 together, Plaintiffs’ wrongful death and Monell claims fail because the State Entities are 25 protected by sovereign immunity. Despite steep odds, the Court grants Plaintiffs the 26 opportunity to address the waiver or abrogation issue in subsequent pleadings. The Court 27 cautions Plaintiffs that the issue is not to be undertaken lightly as “waiver of sovereign 1 Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277, 290 (2011). Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ 2 claims against CDCR and SVSP with leave to amend. 3 D. Plaintiffs’ Wrongful Death Claims Against Does 1-10 4 Defendants allege Plaintiffs’ wrongful death claim was not timely submitted 5 pursuant to California Government Code § 945.6. Under the Government Claims Act, a 6 plaintiff seeking damages must present the claim to the state before bringing certain types 7 of suits, including wrongful death and survival causes of action. See Sakamoto v. County 8 of Los Angeles, 800 F. App’x 487 , 489 (9th Cir. 2020). This procedure applies to suits 9 against public employees, whereupon a plaintiff cannot bring claims against such 10 individuals unless “the claim has been rejected, or has been deemed to have been rejected, 11 in whole or in part by the public entity.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 950.6(a). The claimant has six 12 months from the date the rejection notice is deposited in the mail to file a court action. 13 Cal. Gov’t Code § 950.6(b). The six-month period “is mandatory and strict compliance is 14 required.” Torres v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. 19-cv-03851-SK, 2020 WL 15 496070, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2020). 16 Plaintiffs’ attorney in the present suit submitted a “claim for damages” that was 17 received by the California Government Claims Program on August 3, 2021. RJN, Ex. A at 18 6. Plaintiffs’ claims were rejected by the California Department of General Services on 19 December 29, 2021. Id. at 12 . The rejection letter also warned Plaintiffs about the six20 month deadline, stating “you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was 21 personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim.” Id. 22 Plaintiffs, however, did not file this suit until October 18, 2022 – over three months past 23 the deadline. See Compl. at 14. Plaintiffs’ claims are clearly untimely pursuant to the 24 Government Claims Act. 25 In their opposition, Plaintiffs appear to argue that presentation of a claim against a 26 public employee is not a prerequisite for an action against said employees, citing Olden v. 27 Hatchell, 154 Cal. App. 3d 1032, 1033 (Ct. App. 1984). ECF 16 at 7. The Olden case, 1 || against a public employee is not required to maintain an action against them, “presentation 2 || of aclaim against the employing public entity is a prerequisite to bringing such an 3 || action.” Olden, 154 Cal. App. 3d at 1034 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs’ alternative 4 || argument that some of the Doe-Defendants might be independent contractors lacks any 5 || support beyond mere speculation and is dismissed. Nevertheless, the Court grants 6 || Plaintiffs the opportunity to cure these discrepancies. Accordingly, Plaintiffs wrongful 7 || death claim against Does 1-10 is dismissed with leave to amend. 8 E. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Punitive Damages 9 Lastly, Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages. 10 || Specifically, Defendants allege punitive damages cannot be awarded against the State 11 Entities, and also are not available for wrongful death claims. ECF 10 at 17. However, as 12 || Plaintiffs point out, they are not seeking punitive damages under either of these theories. 13 || Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ punitive damages 14 || claim. 15 || IV. CONCLUSION 16 Based on the foregoing, the Court: (1) GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss 5 17 || Plaintiffs’ wrongful death, deprivation of medical care, and loss of familial association 5 18 || claims with leave to amend; (2) GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ 19 || Monell claim against the State Entities with leave to amend; (3) GRANTS Defendants’ 20 || motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Monell claim against Does 7-10 without leave to amend; and 21 (4) DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim. Plaintiffs 22 || may file an amended complaint on or before March 20, 2023. Plaintiffs may not add 23 || additional parties or claims without leave of court. If no plausible amended complaint is 24 || filed, the Court will enter judgment and close the case. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. — 26 — 27 Dated: March 6, 2023 28 United States Magistrate Judge