Saxton v. County of Sonoma

Background

Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. The court vacated the scheduled hearing and reviewed the pleading. It granted limited permission to amend as described in the order.

The plaintiffs asserted several claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for constitutional violations caused by governmental action. The court concluded that newly added allegations adequately stated the second cause of action, concerning an unconstitutional policy or practice, and the third cause of action, concerning inadequate training or a policy of inaction.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not corrected deficiencies previously identified as to the first cause of action, for failure to intervene, and the fourth cause of action, for conspiracy to violate civil rights. The fifth cause of action, labeled “Monell” liability, was dismissed as duplicative of the other causes of action.

State-Law Claims

The court agreed that California Government Code section 844.6(a) bars state-law claims against public entities for injuries to prisoners. The complaint alleged that Ms. Marcotte was in custody when she died. The court also held that state-law claims arising from Michael Marcotte’s death, including negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against the entity defendants, were based on injuries to Ms. Marcotte and were therefore barred by the same immunity provision.

The court rejected dismissal of those state-law claims against Sheriff Essick and the Doe defendants at the pleading stage. It noted that section 844.6 does not exempt a public employee from liability for injury caused by the employee’s negligent or wrongful act or omission. The court stated that defendants could renew their arguments concerning Sheriff Essick’s liability on a fuller factual record.

James Clark’s Standing

Defendants challenged James Clark’s ability to bring claims based on the death of his sister, Ms. Marcotte, and claims based on the death of his father, Michael Marcotte. Regarding his sister’s death, the court concluded that Clark lacked standing because the complaint alleged that she died without a will and was survived by her daughter, meaning the estate passed to the daughter under California law. The court dismissed Clark’s claims based on his sister’s death without leave to amend.

Regarding Michael Marcotte’s death, the complaint alleged that Clark was a beneficiary of Michael Marcotte’s family trust. The court stated that a trust beneficiary generally is not the proper party to sue on behalf of the trust and that the complaint did not allege that Clark was Michael Marcotte’s successor in interest or personal representative. The court dismissed these claims with leave to amend so Clark could allege facts showing that he had standing to pursue the state-law claims.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. It denied the motion as to the second and third causes of action. It granted the motion without leave to amend as to the first, fourth, and fifth causes of action, while stating that plaintiffs could seek permission to reassert the first or fourth causes of action if they discovered supporting facts. It granted the motion without leave to amend as to the state-law claims against entity defendants and denied it as to Sheriff Essick and the Doe defendants. It granted the motion without leave to amend as to Clark’s claims arising from his sister’s death and granted it with leave to amend as to Clark’s claims arising from his father’s death.

The court allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint adding allegations about Clark’s standing concerning Michael Marcotte’s death, or substituting another plaintiff for those claims, by August 30, 2022.