Crosby v. County of Alameda

Background

Defendants County of Alameda and County of Alameda Officer Henderson moved to dismiss or strike the plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiffs Kathy Crosby and C.C. opposed the motion. The opinion notes that Wellpath, Inc., another defendant, did not join the motion.

The complaint asserted four causes of action: (1) a Fourteenth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning Christopher Crosby’s substantive due-process rights; (2) a § 1983 claim concerning the plaintiffs’ right to a family relationship; (3) a claim under California Government Code § 845.6; and (4) wrongful-death negligence. The complaint also sought punitive damages and injunctive relief.

Reasons for the Rulings

The court held that the first cause of action, to the extent Kathy Crosby brought it on behalf of Christopher Crosby, was subject to dismissal for lack of standing. The court said Crosby had not asserted that she was Christopher Crosby’s personal representative and had not provided the facts required to support her claim to be a successor in interest.

The court held that the first and second causes of action against the County did not allege sufficient facts to establish municipal liability under § 1983. The court also held that those claims against Henderson in her official capacity were duplicative of the claims against the County. The same claims against Henderson individually did not adequately allege her integral participation in the alleged constitutional violations.

The court held that the third cause of action, under California Government Code § 845.6, was subject to dismissal to the extent Crosby brought it on behalf of Christopher Crosby because of the same standing deficiency. The claim against Henderson individually also failed to allege that Henderson knew, or had reason to know, that Christopher Crosby needed immediate medical care and failed to take reasonable action to summon that care.

The court held that the wrongful-death negligence claim was subject to dismissal to the extent Crosby brought it on her own behalf because she had not alleged that she was dependent on Christopher Crosby. The claim against Henderson individually also failed to allege that Christopher Crosby’s suicide was caused by Henderson’s wrongful act or neglect.

The court further held that the punitive-damages request against Henderson lacked sufficient facts to show that such an award was appropriate. The request for injunctive relief was subject to dismissal for lack of standing because the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of similar injury in the future.

Disposition

The court stated that the defendants’ motion to dismiss or strike was GRANTED, as follows:

The court noted that, under an earlier February 3, 2021 order, the third and fourth causes of action had already been dismissed with prejudice to the extent they were brought against the County and Henderson in her official capacity. The plaintiffs could file a First Amended Complaint by March 26, 2021. If they did not do so, the action would proceed on the remaining claims in the complaint. The court continued the initial case-management conference from March 12, 2021, to May 14, 2021.