Kidwell-Bertagnolli v. County of Sonoma

Background

Geoffrey Wise Bertagnolli died on September 9, 2019, after jumping from the fifth floor of a parking garage while Sonoma County Sheriff’s deputies detained him under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150. The plaintiffs—Patricia Kidwell-Bertagnolli and Mr. Bertagnolli’s parents, Dwayne Bertagnolli and Jane Besaw—brought federal and state wrongful-death claims against Sonoma County, the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Mark Essick, and Deputy Veronica Martinez Ordaz.

The incident began after deputies received a report that Mr. Bertagnolli was threatening to jump. Deputy Ordaz spoke with him for about 25 minutes while he knelt on a ledge. Deputies then removed him from the ledge, restrained and handcuffed him, and summoned medical assistance. After Mr. Bertagnolli declined medical evaluation, Deputy Ordaz escorted him toward her patrol vehicle. He broke free while she reached to open a vehicle door, ran around the vehicle, and jumped over the ledge about three seconds later.

Federal Claims and Summary Judgment

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which is judgment without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court viewed the evidence in the plaintiffs’ favor.

The plaintiffs asserted Section 1983 claims against Deputy Ordaz involving Fourth Amendment excessive force, integral participation, failure to intervene, and denial of medical care. They also asserted Fourteenth Amendment claims for failure to protect from harm and denial of substantive due process. The court held that Deputy Ordaz’s continued hold on Mr. Bertagnolli’s leg for 18 seconds after handcuffing was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. The court also found no evidence establishing that she participated in or should have stopped unconstitutional force by other deputies, failed to summon required medical assistance, or acted in a way that violated clearly established substantive-due-process rights.

The court alternatively held that qualified immunity protected Deputy Ordaz. Qualified immunity generally protects an official unless the plaintiff shows both a constitutional violation and a clearly established legal rule that would have made the official’s conduct unlawful. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had identified no case clearly establishing that the specific conduct alleged—such as the 18-second leg hold, the alleged failure to intervene, or the failure to summon specialized mental-health assistance—was unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs also brought a municipal-liability claim against the County and Sheriff Essick. The court granted summary judgment on the claims based on ratification and an unconstitutional policy or practice because the plaintiffs did not oppose summary judgment on those theories. It also rejected the failure-to-train theory, finding no evidence of a particular training deficiency amounting to deliberate indifference, no pattern of similar incidents, and evidence that Deputy Ordaz had completed field-officer and crisis-intervention training.

State Claims and Disposition

The plaintiffs’ state claims included battery, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of California’s Bane Act. The court granted summary judgment on those claims as to Sheriff Essick because it was undisputed that he did not participate in the incident.

After granting summary judgment on the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims; a court may decline it after all claims within its original federal jurisdiction have been resolved. The court dismissed the remaining state claims without prejudice, explaining that they involved state-law issues not resolved by the federal rulings. The court also granted the plaintiffs’ unopposed administrative motion to seal.

Order

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in part. It granted summary judgment on all Section 1983 claims against all defendants and on the state claims against Sheriff Essick. It dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice and granted the unopposed motion to seal.