Ward v. The County of Mendocino

Background

The plaintiffs are Ina Ward, Kevin Ward, and Margaret Ward, who brought claims concerning Earl Ward’s custody by the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Department, his fall and injuries while in a cell, and his later death. The operative third amended complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the Fourteenth Amendment, supervisory liability, elder abuse, and wrongful death based on medical negligence.

Plaintiffs sought permission to file a fourth amended complaint. The proposed pleading would add Claire Teske and Timothy Pearce as defendants; clarify that the elder-abuse and Monell claims applied to specified defendants; clarify that the § 1983 claims were survival and wrongful-death claims; update factual allegations based on discovery; add a claim under California Civil Code § 52.1, known as the Bane Act; and remove claims and references involving defendants who had been dismissed or had settled.

Legal Standard

Because the deadline for amending pleadings had passed, plaintiffs had to show good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), meaning that the deadline could not reasonably have been met despite their diligence. They also had to satisfy Rule 15, which generally favors allowing amendments when justice requires. The court explained that diligence was the primary consideration under Rule 16.

Court’s Analysis and Rulings

Teske and Pearce. The court allowed plaintiffs to substitute Teske and Pearce for Doe defendants. Regarding Pearce, the court found no indication that plaintiffs knew the facts supporting the claims against him when they filed the action. Regarding Teske, the court found that evidence that Margaret Ward knew a person named “Claire” did not establish that plaintiffs knew Teske’s last name or the facts supporting claims against her when the action began. The court also found that Teske and Pearce would not suffer prejudice under the existing discovery schedule.

Elder-abuse claim. The court ruled that the amended complaint could not assert an elder-abuse claim against Dr. Michael Medvin. The court allowed the proposed clarification that the claim was asserted against the other defendants.

Monell and § 1983 amendments. A Monell claim seeks to hold a government entity responsible for an unconstitutional policy, practice, or custom. The court allowed plaintiffs to clarify that the Monell claim was against both California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. and Mendocino County. It also allowed clarification that the § 1983 claims were brought as survival and wrongful-death claims, because those changes concerned theories underlying existing causes of action rather than new causes of action.

The court required plaintiffs to revise the proposed factual allegations supporting the Monell claims. As proposed, those allegations did not specify which actors and entities were responsible for which policies and practices, and therefore did not give each defendant entity adequate notice of the basis for the claimed liability.

Bane Act claim. The court did not allow plaintiffs to add the proposed Bane Act claim. Plaintiffs acknowledged that the claim would rely on the same facts as their existing § 1983 claims. The court found no good cause to modify the amendment deadline because plaintiffs had been able to add the claim earlier and had already filed three amended complaints. The court did not need to resolve defendants’ separate argument that the Bane Act claim would be barred by the statute of limitations.

Removal of claims against prior defendants. The court allowed plaintiffs to remove claims against defendants who were no longer parties to the case. The defendants did not object to those amendments.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. Plaintiffs could file the amended complaint by October 21, 2019, after correcting the deficiencies in the Monell allegations. The court stated that plaintiffs would not be permitted to amend the complaint again after the fourth amended complaint and that the fourth amended complaint could not assert claims against any Doe defendant.