Saxton v. County of Sonoma

Background

The case concerns Amber Marcotte’s death from acute fentanyl intoxication while she was an inmate at the Sonoma County Main Adult Detention Facility. The opinion states that another inmate, Tiffany Pimentel, obtained fentanyl from a recent arrestee in the jail’s book/wait area and brought it to her housing module. Marcotte was later found unresponsive in her cell and died.

Plaintiffs Michelle Saxton, as guardian ad litem for M.J., a minor; the Estate of Amber Marcotte; and Katrina McGinnis alleged that Sonoma County and former Sheriff Essick failed to use adequate policies and procedures to prevent drugs from entering the jail. The alleged deficiencies included screening arrestees, assigning inmate workers, supervising the book/wait area, and searching inmate workers before they returned to the main jail area. Plaintiffs also alleged inadequate training, negligence, negligent hiring, retention and supervision, and loss of a familial relationship.

The evidence included jail policies, deposition testimony, expert reports, and surveillance footage. The court stated that the body scanner was inoperable for several months before Marcotte’s death and that the jail relied on pat-down and strip searches. The court also found that the footage showed Pimentel interacting repeatedly with the arrestees who had brought fentanyl into the facility, while staff did not appear to intervene or separate them.

Summary-judgment rulings

The court applied the summary-judgment standard, under which judgment is proper only when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view the evidence favorably to the nonmoving party and may not resolve credibility disputes or weigh competing evidence at this stage.

For the Saxton plaintiffs’ claims against Sonoma County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court found triable issues of fact on the claim that County policies, practices, or customs were deliberately indifferent to Marcotte’s safety. The court concluded that evidence could support a finding that County policymakers had actual or constructive notice of the danger posed by contraband and fentanyl, that the alleged policy failures allowed fentanyl to enter the jail, and that those failures caused Marcotte’s death. The court therefore denied summary judgment on that claim.

The court granted summary judgment to Sheriff Essick on the Saxton plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims based on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects an official unless the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established with sufficient factual particularity. The court recognized a constitutional right to reasonable safety and care in custody but concluded that Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent had not clearly established that right at the particularized level of preventing the flow of fentanyl into a jail. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the Saxton plaintiffs’ second and third causes of action against Sheriff Essick on that basis.

The court denied summary judgment on the County’s failure-to-train claim. It found factual disputes about whether staff were trained to follow existing policies, including policies concerning interactions between inmate workers and recent arrestees, regular rounds in the book/wait area, and use of the body scanner.

The court granted summary judgment on the Estate’s negligence claims because the Estate had not filed a separate tort claim identifying its own injuries or claims. The tort claim filed for M.J. described her injuries from losing her mother but did not refer to the Estate or Marcotte’s own injuries. The court concluded that the claim did not give the County notice of the Estate’s claims.

The court denied summary judgment on M.J.’s negligence claim against Sheriff Essick. Defendants argued that California’s discretionary-immunity law protected Essick’s decision to replace the body scanner without a working replacement or additional safety measures. The court found that defendants had not shown that Essick made a deliberate and considered policy decision to use no additional measures while the scanner was inoperable.

The court also denied summary judgment on the claim for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. It found triable issues concerning whether Essick’s supervision was negligent, including evidence about the lack of intervention or regular rounds in the book/wait area and Essick’s testimony about his involvement in Sheriff’s Office operations. The court denied summary judgment on McGinnis’s § 1983 claim against the County for loss of a familial relationship because the parties agreed that claim rose or fell with the Saxton plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims against the County.

Sealing rulings

The court granted defendants’ motion to seal Exhibits F through N, S, W, and X, based on the confidentiality showing in the Southard declaration. It denied defendants’ motion to seal Exhibit B because the declaration only stated that the exhibit had been marked confidential and did not establish compelling reasons for sealing it.

The court denied the Saxton plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal. Defendants, the designating party, had not timely filed the required statement or declaration explaining why the material should remain under seal. Defendants later filed a statement of non-opposition, but the court found that statement insufficient under the applicable local rule.