Crosby v. County of Alameda

Background

The court issued an order to show cause—an order requiring the plaintiffs to explain why a particular action should not be taken—concerning claims against fifty unidentified defendants. Does 1–25 were alleged to have been employees of the County of Alameda, and Does 26–50 were alleged to have been employees of Wellpath, Inc. The court identified Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as the possible basis for dismissal because the defendants had not been served within the required time.

The plaintiffs responded that they should be allowed to conduct discovery to identify and substitute the Doe defendants. The County requested dismissal without prejudice. The court stated that the only claims remaining in the case were two federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and one state-law claim under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 377.60 and 377.61. The opinion also notes that a claim under California Government Code section 845.6 had already been dismissed pursuant to a stipulation.

County Does

The court compared the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint with those in the First Amended Complaint. It found the allegations concerning the County Does essentially identical in all material respects. The court therefore concluded that the plaintiffs still had not adequately alleged that any County Doe acted with deliberate indifference on the federal claims or breached a duty of care on the state-law claim.

The court rejected the request for discovery insofar as it sought facts needed to support the claims, rather than merely information identifying unknown defendants. It explained that discovery does not cure a complaint that is facially insufficient—that is, one whose allegations do not adequately state a claim on their face.

Wellpath Does

The plaintiffs added allegations concerning the duty of care owed by Wellpath, including alleged contractual requirements that a qualified medical provider physically check an inmate on suicide watch at least twice during every eight-hour period, with the checks at least three hours apart. The court determined, however, that the previously identified deficiency concerned breach of the duty, not the existence of the duty itself.

The court found that the allegations about breach essentially assumed that Wellpath staff must have done something wrong because Christopher Crosby died by suicide. The complaint alleged that Wellpath staff either failed to monitor items given to him or directly gave him the plastic bag used in his death. The court held that these allegations did not permit an inference beyond the mere possibility of misconduct and were insufficient to plead the claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against both sets of Doe defendants. Its conclusion states that the claims against the Doe defendants were dismissed without prejudice. The order addressed the sufficiency of the pleadings and did not decide the ultimate merits of the claims.