Hernandez v. County of Santa Clara

Background

The opinion states that Carlos Aguilar died by suicide while an inmate at the Santa Clara County Jail. His mother, Manuela Hernandez, sued the County of Santa Clara, Sheriff Laurie Smith, Deputies Alan Tse and Tambini, and 50 unidentified County employees. Hernandez sued for herself and as guardian ad litem for Aguilar’s two minor children, and also asserted a survival claim as Aguilar’s successor in interest.

The First Amended Complaint contained eight counts: four claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of Aguilar’s and Hernandez’s Fourteenth Amendment rights; negligence claims; a claim under California Government Code § 845.6 for failure to summon medical care; and a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved to dismiss all eight counts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Constitutional Claims

The court treated Counts 1 through 4 as presenting two main theories: that jail officials violated Aguilar’s substantive due-process right to protection and adequate medical care, and that the officials interfered with Hernandez’s right to familial association.

For the medical-care theory, the court applied the Ninth Circuit’s objective deliberate-indifference standard for pretrial detainees. The complaint had to plausibly allege that an official made an intentional decision, that the decision created a substantial risk of serious harm, that the official failed to take reasonable available measures despite the obvious risk, and that this failure caused the injury.

The court found the allegations insufficient. Regarding intake, the complaint alleged that Aguilar had suicidal thoughts but did not allege that the intake officers knew about those thoughts, that Aguilar disclosed them, or that the officers failed to discover them because they conducted an inadequate intake interview. Regarding the day of his death, the complaint alleged that Aguilar sat anxiously on his bunk and did not participate in free time, but did not explain what made him appear anxious or whether his conduct was unusual. The court concluded that these allegations did not plausibly show that Deputies Tse and Tambini recognized an imminent suicide risk or recklessly disregarded that risk.

The court also dismissed the familial-association claim. It reasoned that the complaint did not adequately allege deliberate indifference, and therefore did not allege the more demanding conduct required to show that officials’ actions “shocked the conscience.”

The court separately found that the complaint did not adequately connect the County or Sheriff Smith to the alleged constitutional violations. A County liability claim under § 1983 requires a policy or custom that directly caused the constitutional violation and was followed with deliberate indifference to constitutional rights. The complaint identified no specific County policy or custom. A supervisory-liability claim against Sheriff Smith required personal involvement or a sufficient causal connection, but the complaint alleged only that she had general responsibility for discipline, training, supervision, and policy decisions.

California Claims

The court dismissed Counts 5 and 7, the general negligence and California wrongful-death claims, against the County. California Government Code § 844.6 generally immunizes public entities from liability for injuries to prisoners, including jail detainees, and Hernandez identified no applicable exception other than the medical-care exception underlying Count 6.

The court also dismissed the negligence claims against the individual defendants. It explained that California law imposes a duty of care in the jailer-prisoner relationship but that Government Code § 855.8 provides immunity for injuries resulting from diagnosing or failing to diagnose mental illness or failing to prescribe for mental illness. The court concluded that the Sheriff and deputies did not have a duty to recognize that Aguilar was suicidal under the theories alleged. Independently, the complaint did not explain how monitoring was inadequate, identify other measures the defendants should have taken, or allege how Aguilar obtained the towel used in his suicide. The allegation that Sheriff Smith negligently supervised or trained the deputies was also conclusory.

The court dismissed Count 6, the claim under Government Code § 845.6 for failure to summon medical care, because the complaint did not allege facts showing that any County employee knew or had reason to know that Aguilar needed immediate medical care.

Finally, the court dismissed Count 8, the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim, without leave to amend. Hernandez characterized the claim as a survival action on Aguilar’s behalf, but California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.34 bars a successor in interest from recovering damages for pain, suffering, disfigurement, or emotional distress through such an action. The court concluded that amendment would be futile.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend as to Counts 1 through 7 and without leave to amend as to Count 8. The court ordered that any amended complaint be filed by June 26, 2020. This was a pleading-stage ruling; the court evaluated whether the allegations were legally sufficient and did not decide the ultimate truth of the allegations.

Date inconsistency

The opinion’s opening states that Aguilar died on December 8, 2018, while its later description of the First Amended Complaint refers to the day of his suicide as December 2, 2018. The opinion also states that Aguilar was admitted on July 25, 2019. These dates are reproduced as stated and appear inconsistent.