Saxton v. County of Sonoma

Background

Trial was scheduled to begin on August 11, 2025. In an earlier summary-judgment order, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion. The court held that Sheriff Essick was protected by qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, granted summary judgment for defendants on the Estate of Amber Marcotte’s negligence claims based on failure to file a tort claim, and denied summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims that the county was responsible for unconstitutional policies or practices and on M.J.’s negligence claims.

Defendants then asked the court to certify two questions for an early appeal and to stay, or pause, the case while any such appeal proceeded. The proposed questions concerned whether failing to prevent drugs from entering a jail and being consumed by an inmate could violate the Eighth Amendment, and whether a plaintiff pursuing county liability must prove both an objective and subjective constitutional violation.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that certification for an early appeal requires all three conditions in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b): a controlling legal question, substantial grounds for disagreement about that question, and a finding that an immediate appeal could materially advance the end of the litigation. The party seeking certification bears the burden of showing all three conditions, and the procedure is reserved for exceptional situations.

The court found that defendants’ first proposed question was not a controlling legal question because it was a mixed question of law and fact. The county-liability claims depended on factual disputes about whether jail policymakers knew, or should have known, about deficiencies that were substantially likely to cause an inmate’s fentanyl-overdose death. The opinion identified evidence concerning an earlier fentanyl overdose, the possibility of contraband entering through inmate workers, an inoperable body scanner, inconsistent searches, and limited supervision in the jail’s book-and-wait area.

The court also found that defendants had not shown substantial disagreement about the second proposed question. It stated that Ninth Circuit decisions apply an objective standard to an Eighth Amendment county-liability claim because municipalities do not have a state of mind. The cases defendants relied on involved claims against individual prison officials rather than municipalities.

Finally, the court found that an immediate appeal would not materially advance the litigation because defendants did not seek certification concerning the state-law negligence claims, which were factually closely connected to the county-liability claims and would remain regardless of how those claims were resolved.

Disposition

The court denied defendants’ motion for certification for an interlocutory appeal and to stay the case. Judge Susan Illston entered the order on July 11, 2025.