Crosby v. County of Alameda

Background

The case arose from Christopher Crosby’s death on December 4, 2019, while he was incarcerated at Santa Rita Jail in Alameda County. The complaint alleged that he had been admitted to the jail in February 2018 and classified as a suicide risk by County correctional officers and Wellpath staff. Wellpath was alleged to provide medical services for inmates at the jail. Plaintiffs Kathy Crosby, Christopher Crosby’s mother, and C.C., his daughter, alleged that County and Wellpath staff failed to monitor him properly and failed to prevent him from possessing a plastic bag, which he placed over his head and used to suffocate himself.

The amended complaint asserted four causes of action: two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations, a claim under California Government Code § 845.6, and a wrongful-death negligence claim. An earlier order had dismissed the § 845.6 claim with prejudice, leaving the first, second, and fourth causes of action. The present motion concerned Wellpath’s request to dismiss those remaining claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

First Cause of Action

The first cause of action alleged that Wellpath was responsible under § 1983 for the failure of its staff to ensure that Christopher did not possess instruments of suicidality and to monitor him properly. The court applied the rule that a private entity sued under § 1983 must have acted under color of state law and that the alleged constitutional violation must have resulted from the entity’s official policy or custom.

The court held that plaintiffs had not alleged enough facts to identify a Wellpath policy or custom. Plaintiffs relied on an alleged failure to train employees, but the court explained that a failure to train is actionable only when it amounts to deliberate indifference to people’s rights. The complaint described only one incident, and plaintiffs’ belief that discovery might reveal earlier suicide deaths involving Wellpath staff was speculation rather than a sufficient factual allegation.

The court also held that the allegations did not adequately show deliberate indifference under the objective standard applicable to a pretrial detainee’s claim involving medical care or suicide prevention. The allegations that Christopher obtained a plastic bag at an unspecified time and in an unspecified manner, nearly two years after being admitted and placed on suicide watch, did not show that Wellpath staff knew or should have known that he faced imminent danger or failed to take reasonable measures to address that risk. The court dismissed the first cause of action against Wellpath and the nonmoving Doe defendants because the same deficiency applied to them.

Second Cause of Action

The second cause of action alleged that Wellpath’s failure to train its employees violated plaintiffs’ constitutional right to a familial relationship with Christopher. The court held that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged a Wellpath policy or custom. It also held that the allegations did not show conduct sufficiently deliberate or conscience-shocking to support a constitutional familial-association claim, because the allegations were insufficient to establish deliberate indifference. The court therefore dismissed the second cause of action against Wellpath and the nonmoving Doe defendants.

Fourth Cause of Action

The fourth cause of action was for wrongful-death negligence. Plaintiffs alleged that Wellpath was vicariously liable for negligence by its staff, who allegedly breached their duty of care by failing to monitor Christopher properly and allowing him access to the plastic bag.

Wellpath did not dispute, for purposes of the motion, that it could be held vicariously liable for staff negligence or that its staff owed Christopher a duty of care. The court nevertheless held that plaintiffs had not alleged enough facts to support a reasonable inference that the duty was breached. The complaint did not explain how or when Christopher obtained the plastic bag or how Wellpath’s monitoring was inadequate. The court dismissed the fourth cause of action against Wellpath and the Wellpath Doe defendants.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court found that the pleading deficiencies were potentially curable. Although similar deficiencies had previously been identified in connection with claims against the County and a County officer, Wellpath had not joined that earlier motion, and the County and officer had not moved on behalf of the Doe defendants. The court therefore granted plaintiffs leave to amend for the limited purpose of curing the identified deficiencies, if they could do so.

Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims with leave to amend. The court set August 13, 2021, as the deadline for a second amended complaint and continued the initial case-management conference to October 29, 2021.