Regal v. County of Santa Clara

Background

Frederick Inea Regal was arrested on July 28, 2020, and taken to the Santa Clara County Jail. During intake, a therapist recorded that Regal had a history of mood swings and depression, was thinking about suicide, and appeared to be detoxing. Regal was placed on 15-minute checks and housed alone in a cell with an upper bunk and bed linens.

On July 29, 2020, therapist Consuelo Garcia evaluated Regal. Regal said, “Yes I’m suicidal,” and Garcia continued the 15-minute checks without ordering other precautions. She did not recommend moving Regal to a cell without an upper bunk, remove his bedsheets, provide a safety blanket, or implement a Ferguson gown. Deputy Omar Cevallos conducted the scheduled checks. Later that afternoon, he found Regal hanging from a bedsheet attached to the upper bunk. Regal was revived, placed on life support, and died on August 5, 2020.

The plaintiffs—Regal’s children and successors in interest—asserted four claims: a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Garcia and Cevallos; a claim for loss of familial association against those defendants; and two claims against the County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil-rights statute allowing claims for constitutional violations by state or local officials. The County claims alleged an unconstitutional custom, practice, or policy and failure to train jail staff. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legally sufficient claim.

Claims Against Garcia and Cevallos

The defendants argued that Garcia and Cevallos were protected by qualified immunity. Qualified immunity can shield government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate a constitutional right or when the right was not clearly established at the time.

The court held that Ninth Circuit precedent clearly established before 2020 that pretrial detainees have a Fourteenth Amendment right to reasonable measures addressing a known risk of suicide. As to Garcia, the court concluded that the complaint plausibly alleged that she knew of Regal’s express statement that he was suicidal, had authority to implement additional precautions, and acted unreasonably by maintaining only the 15-minute checks while leaving him in a cell with a hanging point, bed linens, and limited visibility. The motion to dismiss the claims against Garcia based on qualified immunity was DENIED.

As to Cevallos, the court emphasized that he was a correctional deputy, not a mental-health professional, and that he followed Garcia’s direction to conduct 15-minute checks. The court held that it was not clearly established that a deputy in Cevallos’s position had to second-guess the mental-health staff’s directive and take additional suicide-prevention measures. The motion to dismiss the claims against Cevallos based on qualified immunity was GRANTED.

The court separately held that the deliberate-indifference claim against Garcia was adequately pleaded. It also held that the plaintiffs adequately stated their claim that Garcia’s alleged conduct caused them to lose their familial relationship with their father. The motion to dismiss both claims against Garcia for failure to state a claim was DENIED.

Claims Against the County

The court held that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded the County custom, practice, or policy claim. The complaint alleged that the County housed suicidal inmates in cells with obvious hanging points and maintained written policies that did not clearly require measures such as staggered checks or removal of bedsheets. The court found that the allegations plausibly connected those practices and policies to Regal’s death. The motion to dismiss Claim 3 against the County was DENIED.

The court reached a different conclusion on the failure-to-train claim. It found the allegations too conclusory because they did not clearly describe what training the County provided, what “suicide prevention training” meant, or why additional training would have prevented Regal’s injury. The motion to dismiss Claim 4 against the County was GRANTED.

Disposition

The court’s order GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART the motion to dismiss, without leave to amend as to the dismissed claims. Claims 1 and 2 against Cevallos and Claim 4 against the County were dismissed without leave to amend. The motion was denied as to Claims 1 and 2 against Garcia and Claim 3 against the County. The defendants were ordered to answer the first amended complaint, and the plaintiffs could not add claims or parties without the court’s express permission.