Saxton v. County of Sonoma

Background

Amber Marcotte was arrested for driving under the influence and held at the Sonoma County Main Adult Detention Facility beginning July 11, 2020. On October 29, 2020, she died from a fentanyl overdose in her cell. Her cellmate, Tiffany Pimentel, was also found outside the cell and overdosing on fentanyl. The complaint alleged that investigators found no drugs or drug paraphernalia in the cell or on either person, that the cell was locked at night, and that cameras monitored the area.

The complaint also alleged that the jail had experienced other narcotics incidents, that Marcotte participated in available substance-abuse programs, and that the Sheriff’s Department did not use its Critical Incident Protocol after her death. Plaintiffs Michelle Saxton, the Estate of Michael Marcotte, the Estate of Amber Marcotte, and James Clark sued Sonoma County, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Mark Essick, and individual officers identified as Does 1 through 50.

The first amended complaint asserted five federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and three California state-law claims. The federal claims alleged failures to prevent drug trafficking and investigate fatal injuries, unconstitutional customs or policies, failure to train, conspiracy, and municipal liability under the rule commonly called Monell. The state-law claims alleged negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but did not accept conclusory statements, unsupported factual deductions, or unreasonable inferences.

Federal Claims and Municipal Liability

The court explained that a county or other local government may be liable under § 1983 when an official policy or custom causes a constitutional violation. A local government cannot be held responsible merely because one of its employees allegedly acted unlawfully. To proceed, a plaintiff generally must allege an unconstitutional policy or custom, a deliberately indifferent failure to train or adopt a needed policy, or conduct by an official who had final policymaking authority.

The court found the allegations insufficient for all five federal causes of action. For the failure-to-intervene claim, plaintiffs had not alleged facts showing that defendants unreasonably allowed Marcotte to face an obvious risk of fentanyl overdose or failed to take remedial action after learning of the overdose. For the alleged unconstitutional customs and policies, plaintiffs referred to numerous narcotics incidents and asserted that inmate overdoses regularly occurred, but did not provide factual details about other incidents. The court held that these sparse and conclusory allegations did not establish a persistent custom or practice.

The failure-to-train claim also lacked factual allegations about other similar constitutional violations that could show a deliberately indifferent training or supervision policy. The conspiracy claim did not allege facts supporting the conclusion that defendants agreed to place Marcotte at obvious risk of overdose or obstruct the investigation of her death. The court likewise granted the motion as to the Monell allegations, explaining that plaintiffs would need to allege more than isolated or sporadic incidents and instead show practices of sufficient duration, frequency, and consistency to have become a traditional way of carrying out policy.

State-Law Claims

The state-law claims were before the federal court only through supplemental jurisdiction, which can allow a federal court to hear related state-law claims. The court stated that if plaintiffs ultimately could not state a federal claim, it would decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Because plaintiffs were given an opportunity to amend their federal claims, the court did not address the parties’ arguments concerning the state-law claims at that stage.

Disposition

The court GRANTED defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and GRANTED plaintiffs leave to amend. Plaintiffs were required to file a second amended complaint by May 13, 2022.