Hernandez v. County of Santa Clara

Background

Manuela Hernandez brought the action for herself and as guardian ad litem for the two minor children of her son, Carlos Aguilar. Aguilar was admitted to the Elmwood Correctional Facility of the Santa Clara County Jail on July 25, 2018, and died by suicide on December 2, 2018.

According to the Second Amended Complaint, Aguilar asked to be placed in protective custody because he wanted to separate from the “South Siders Sureños” gang and believed that others were spreading rumors about him. Officials transferred him to protective custody, where allegations described him as paranoid, agitated, and involved in conflicts or threats involving other inmates. He was later moved to a higher protective-custody unit. On the evening of December 2, Deputies Alan Tse and Tambini supervised that unit. After a classification count, the opening of cell doors for programming, and a later welfare check, Deputy Tambini found Aguilar hanging from the top bunk. Aguilar was determined to have died by suicide.

The Second Amended Complaint asserted eight claims: four claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including claims involving Aguilar’s constitutional rights and Hernandez’s right to familial association; California negligence and wrongful-death claims; a claim under California Government Code § 845.6 for failure to summon medical care; and a common-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved to dismiss the entire Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.

Judicial Notice

The court took judicial notice of Deputy Lamar’s complete Administrative Rehousing Report because the complaint referred to and relied on excerpts from that report and Hernandez did not challenge its authenticity. The court also took judicial notice of minutes from Aguilar’s California state-court case because Hernandez did not oppose the request and the court found them to be true and correct copies of state-court documents.

Section 1983 Claims

The court treated Aguilar as a convicted prisoner rather than a pretrial detainee because the state-court minutes showed that he was serving a sentence after a no-contest plea. The court therefore analyzed the claims concerning Aguilar’s medical needs under the Eighth Amendment rather than the Fourteenth Amendment.

The court identified two distinct theories among Counts 1 through 4. The first alleged that defendants were deliberately indifferent to Aguilar’s serious medical need—his alleged suicidal condition. The second alleged that defendants’ failure to prevent his suicide violated Hernandez’s constitutional right to familial association.

Deliberate Indifference

A deliberate-indifference claim requires allegations showing both a serious medical need and that officials knew of, or should have recognized, a substantial risk and lacked a reasonable justification for exposing the prisoner to that risk. The court recognized that a heightened suicide risk or attempted suicide can qualify as a serious medical need.

The court assumed for purposes of the motion that Aguilar had suicidal thoughts. It nevertheless found the allegations insufficient to show that the risk was obvious or that the officials knew of a substantial suicide risk. The complaint alleged that Aguilar requested protective custody, appeared paranoid, threatened or nearly fought with other inmates, was moved to another unit, and sat anxiously on his bunk without participating in free time. But the court emphasized that the complaint did not allege a prior suicide attempt, a history of mental-health problems or treatment, a request for mental-health care, complaints of suicidal feelings, or conduct that was suicidal in nature. It also noted that Aguilar told officials he “didn’t have any problems.”

The court concluded that these allegations did not state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss that claim.

Familial-Relationship Claim and County Liability

The court explained that parents and children have a protected interest in the companionship and society of one another. A claim based on interference with that relationship requires official conduct that “shocks the conscience,” a more demanding standard than deliberate indifference. Because the complaint did not adequately allege deliberate indifference, the court concluded that it also did not allege conduct that shocked the conscience and dismissed Hernandez’s familial-relationship claim.

The court separately dismissed the § 1983 familial-relationship claim against the County. It found that the Second Amended Complaint did not identify a specific County policy, custom, or failure to adopt a policy or custom that allegedly caused Aguilar’s death. The court did not address the defendants’ arguments concerning Sheriff Laurie Smith because the Second Amended Complaint named her but did not assert § 1983 claims against her.

Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity is a legal protection that generally prevents damages claims against government officials unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The court held that the individual defendants prevailed under the clearly-established-law part of that analysis. It concluded that the law did not clearly establish that officials were required to place an inmate on suicide protocol based on the alleged facts, where there was no alleged history of mental illness or treatment, prior suicide attempts, requests for mental-health care, or prior behavior indicating a heightened suicide risk.

The court therefore granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the § 1983 claims against the individual defendants on qualified-immunity grounds.

State Law Claims

The court dismissed Counts 5 and 7, which asserted negligence and wrongful death based on the alleged failure to address Aguilar’s suicidal condition. It found that the complaint did not cure the previously identified deficiencies. The court also concluded that California Government Code § 855.8(a) meant the named defendants did not have a duty to recognize that Aguilar was suicidal based on the allegations presented. As to the wrongful-death claim against the County, the court held that California Government Code § 844.6 generally immunizes public entities from liability for an injury to a prisoner and that Hernandez identified no applicable exception other than the medical-care exception addressed in Count 6.

Count 6 alleged a failure to summon medical care under California Government Code § 845.6. The court accepted that a suicidal state is a serious and obvious medical condition requiring immediate care, but found that Hernandez had not alleged facts showing that any County employee knew or had reason to know that Aguilar faced a risk of suicide. The court therefore granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Count 6.

The court did not consider Count 8, the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim, because its earlier order had already dismissed that claim with prejudice and without permission to amend.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court denied Hernandez’s request for permission to file another amended complaint. Hernandez had already amended once after the court’s earlier dismissal order, and the proposed third amended complaint either omitted further allegations or added allegations that remained insufficient. The court found that further amendment would be futile.

Judge Edward J. Davila granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. The court also denied leave to amend.