Cavagna v. Clearlake Police Department

Background

David and Kimberly Cavagna sued the Clearlake Police Department, Officer Brittany Shores, the City of Clearlake, Lake County, Lake County Behavioral Health, the California Highway Patrol, and Officer Joel Skeen. The lawsuit concerned the death of their son, Jesse Cavagna, who had schizophrenia. The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to adequately search for or assist Jesse while he was missing and failed to protect him.

The complaint asserted four groups of claims: (1) a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging due-process and equal-protection violations; (2) a claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (3) a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act; and (4) wrongful-death and survivorship claims. The pending motions were the California Highway Patrol’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the City of Clearlake and Shores’s motion to dismiss, Skeen’s motion to dismiss, and Lake County and Lake County Behavioral Health’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Judicial Notice

The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of Chapter 14 of the 2020 California Highway Patrol Manual because it was a public record whose contents were not reasonably subject to dispute. The court denied requests to take judicial notice of a San Francisco Chronicle article and an autopsy report because the article could not be judicially noticed for the truth of its contents, and the basis and relevance of the apparently private autopsy were unclear.

Section 1983 Claims

The court ruled that the California Highway Patrol could not be sued under § 1983 because it is a state agency and therefore is not a “person” for purposes of that statute. The § 1983 claim against the California Highway Patrol was dismissed with prejudice.

As to the Clearlake defendants, the court dismissed the due-process claim with prejudice. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to investigate and locate Jesse, but they did not argue that a recognized exception created an affirmative constitutional duty to protect him.

The court also dismissed the equal-protection claim against Shores with prejudice. The plaintiffs did not allege facts showing that Shores acted, or failed to act, because she intended to discriminate against Jesse based on his mental condition. The court additionally held that qualified immunity applied because the plaintiffs identified no factually similar authority that would have put Shores on notice that her specific conduct violated Jesse’s equal-protection rights.

The equal-protection claim against the City of Clearlake was dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiffs were given leave to amend to allege a municipal claim based on a policy, custom, or practice that was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violation. The court said the plaintiffs needed to allege specific facts supporting that theory.

The court dismissed Skeen’s due-process claim with leave to amend. The complaint did not allege that Skeen had Jesse in custody; instead, it alleged that Skeen failed to take him into custody. At the hearing, the plaintiffs raised a new theory that Skeen had custody of Jesse when he stopped him, but that theory was not adequately alleged in the complaint. The court allowed an amendment addressing whether Skeen legally had Jesse in custody and whether that created the required special relationship or duty.

The equal-protection claim against Skeen was dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs identified no facts showing discriminatory intent and no similar legal authority establishing that Skeen’s alleged conduct violated equal-protection rights. The court also held that qualified immunity applied.

The due-process claim against the Lake County defendants was dismissed, but the plaintiffs were allowed to amend. The court found that the complaint did not clearly identify whether the claim concerned access to Jesse’s file, denial of mental-health services, or the defendants’ failure to investigate his disappearance. The plaintiffs were required to identify the specific actions forming the basis of the claim and supporting case law.

The equal-protection claim against the Lake County defendants was dismissed, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs acknowledged that they lacked allegations and information showing discriminatory intent or how Lake County Behavioral Health treated other participants. The court allowed an amendment alleging facts that the agency acted because Jesse had a severe mental-health condition the agency did not want to manage.

Americans with Disabilities Act Claim

The plaintiffs labeled their disability claim as one under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court explained that Title III concerns public accommodations and services operated by private entities, while the defendants identified in the complaint were government entities or employees of government entities. The plaintiffs cited Title II and other disability-law provisions in opposition, but they had not pleaded those claims.

The Title III claim was dismissed with prejudice. The court allowed the plaintiffs to plead a Title II claim against the government entities, but not against Shores or Skeen. Any Title II claim would need specific facts showing discrimination because of disability as to each defendant.

Unruh Act Claim

The court dismissed the Unruh Act claim with prejudice. The Act applies to business establishments, and the defendants’ alleged conduct involved traditional government functions—police work and assisting with the search for a missing person—not business functions or commercial activity.

Wrongful Death, Survivorship, and Other Relief

The court dismissed the wrongful-death and survivorship claim because the complaint did not clearly state whether it was a negligence claim or an effort to enforce Jesse’s claims through his representatives or successor in interest, and because the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged their other claims. The court allowed the plaintiffs to amend any related wrongful-death and survivorship claim as specified in the conclusion.

The request for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Clearlake defendants was dismissed with prejudice because the plaintiffs did not allege facts supporting standing, likely future harm, or inadequate legal remedies. Any relief sought under 18 U.S.C. § 1964 was dismissed with prejudice as to the Lake County defendants because the plaintiffs had not alleged a claim under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute.

Disposition

The court granted the California Highway Patrol’s motion to dismiss. The § 1983, Title III, and Unruh Act claims against the California Highway Patrol were dismissed with prejudice, while the plaintiffs could amend to allege a Title II claim and any related wrongful-death and survivorship claim.

The court granted the Clearlake defendants’ motion to dismiss. All claims against Shores were dismissed with prejudice. The § 1983 due-process, Title III, and Unruh Act claims against the City of Clearlake, and the request for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Clearlake defendants, were dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs could amend to allege a § 1983 equal-protection claim, a Title II claim, and related wrongful-death and survivorship claims against the City of Clearlake.

The court granted Skeen’s motion to dismiss. The § 1983 equal-protection and ADA claims against Skeen were dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs could amend to allege a § 1983 due-process claim and any related wrongful-death and survivorship claim against Skeen.

The court granted the Lake County defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Title III, Unruh Act, and § 1964-penalty claims were dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs could amend to allege the specific bases for § 1983 due-process and equal-protection claims, a Title II claim, and related wrongful-death and survivorship claims. The plaintiffs had 21 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint, and the court barred new claims except those specified in the order.