Kidwell-Bertagnolli v. County of Sonoma

Background

Patricia Kidwell-Bertagnolli, Dwaye Bertagnolli, and Jane Besaw sued the County of Sonoma, the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Mark Essick, Deputy Veronica Ordaz, and unidentified defendants. The suit followed Geoffrey Wise Bertagnolli’s death after deputies responded to reports that he was suicidal on the roof of a casino parking garage.

According to the complaint, the deputies removed Mr. Bertagnolli from the ledge, handcuffed him, and attempted to place him in a patrol vehicle. When Deputy Ordaz opened the vehicle, she found that the door was locked. Mr. Bertagnolli broke free and ran toward the ledge while other officers allegedly were distracted. He jumped from the garage and died.

The plaintiffs asserted eight claims: four claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including failure to protect, deliberate indifference to medical and mental-health needs, substantive due process, and municipal or supervisory liability; disability-accommodation claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; wrongful death based on negligence; negligent infliction of emotional distress; and a claim under California’s Bane Act.

Standing and Section 1983 Claims

The court stated that it was unclear whether Patricia Kidwell-Bertagnolli had properly asserted survival claims on behalf of Mr. Bertagnolli’s estate. Because most claims were being dismissed with leave to amend, the court directed that any amendment also address the standing issues. The opinion noted that the plaintiffs did not appear to dispute that Mr. Bertagnolli’s parents had standing only to bring a wrongful-death claim.

The court dismissed the claims against Sheriff Essick in his official capacity as redundant because the County was also named and the plaintiffs did not seek an injunction. It also dismissed the individual-capacity supervisory-liability claim against Sheriff Essick because the complaint did not adequately allege his personal involvement, knowledge, or approval of the alleged constitutional violations.

The court dismissed the claims against the unidentified defendants. It found that the allegations did not adequately show that the unidentified officers were fundamentally involved in a constitutional violation or had a realistic opportunity to stop Mr. Bertagnolli’s suicide while knowing that a constitutional violation was occurring.

A municipal-liability claim, commonly called a Monell claim, alleges that a local government’s policy, practice, or custom caused a constitutional violation. The court held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged this claim against the County and related defendants. The complaint identified alleged policies involving training, suicide prevention, monitoring, medical care, and officer discipline. It also alleged that officials knew Deputy Ordaz and other officers had repeatedly failed examinations involving mentally ill individuals and that five other people had died by suicide in Sheriff’s Office custody. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss the Monell claim.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the deliberate-indifference claim. It held that the complaint did not plausibly allege that Deputy Ordaz’s conduct—removing Mr. Bertagnolli from the ledge, handcuffing him, and attempting to place him in the vehicle—met the required standard for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.

The court also dismissed the substantive-due-process claim. It concluded that the allegations did not plausibly show conduct that shocked the conscience or that the officers acted with a purpose to harm unrelated to legitimate law-enforcement objectives.

The court summarized its Section 1983 ruling by granting the motion to dismiss those claims except for the Monell claim.

Disability Claim

The plaintiffs alleged that the County and Sheriff’s Office failed to reasonably accommodate Mr. Bertagnolli’s disability by failing to adopt appropriate procedures, train officers, and provide crisis-intervention officers. Because the complaint sought only money damages, the plaintiffs had to plausibly allege intentional discrimination. The court held that the allegations supported, at most, inadvertent or negligent conduct rather than the required deliberate indifference. It dismissed the disability claim.

State-Law Claims

The court declined to decide at the pleading stage whether California Government Code sections 845.8 and 846 provided immunity from the state-law claims. The complaint did not allege that Mr. Bertagnolli was detained under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150, arrested, or that Deputy Ordaz was attempting to arrest him when he broke away. The defendants therefore had not shown as a matter of law that the immunity provisions applied.

The court held that Patricia Kidwell-Bertagnolli adequately pleaded negligent infliction of emotional distress. She alleged that she was present when her husband broke away from Deputy Ordaz and died, and that she suffered serious emotional distress as a result. The court’s ruling allowed that claim to continue to the extent it was brought by her.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the Bane Act claim. It held that the complaint did not adequately allege that a constitutional violation was accompanied by threats, violence, or coercion.

Disposition

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The motion was granted as to all claims except the Monell claim and Patricia Kidwell-Bertagnolli’s negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim. The court granted leave to amend, barred new claims without the court’s permission, and required an amended complaint within 21 days identifying which claims were brought by which plaintiffs.