Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange

Decision Date30 April 2018
Docket NumberNo. 16-56005,16-56005
Citation888 F.3d 1118
Parties Mary GORDON, successor-in-interest for decedent, Matthew Shawn Gordon, individually, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE; Orange County Sheriff's Department; Sandra Hutchens, Orange County Sheriff—Coroner; Orange County Central Men's Jail; Orange County Health Care Agency; Does, 5 through 10, inclusive; Robert Denney ; Brian Tunque; Brianne Garcia; Debra Finley, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

888 F.3d 1118

Mary GORDON, successor-in-interest for decedent, Matthew Shawn Gordon, individually, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF ORANGE; Orange County Sheriff's Department; Sandra Hutchens, Orange County Sheriff—Coroner; Orange County Central Men's Jail; Orange County Health Care Agency; Does, 5 through 10, inclusive; Robert Denney ; Brian Tunque; Brianne Garcia; Debra Finley, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56005

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted December 8, 2017 Pasadena, California
Filed April 30, 2018


David A. Schlesinger (argued), Jacobs & Schlesinger LLP, San Diego, California; Cameron Sehat, The Sehat Law Firm PLC, Irvine, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Pancy Lin (argued) and S. Frank Harrell, Lynberg & Watkins, Orange, California, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges, and Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers,* District Judge.

GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge:

This case arises from the death of Matthew Gordon ("Gordon") within 30 hours of being detained in the Orange County Men's Central Jail (the "County Jail"). Plaintiff Mary Gordon, successor-in-interest for decedent, sued defendants Robert Denny, Brian Tunque, Brianne Garcia, and Debra Finley ("the Individual Defendants"); and the County of Orange and associated entities ("the Entity Defendants") under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating Gordon's right to adequate medical care under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Given developments in Section 1983 jurisprudence, including the Supreme Court's decision in Kingsley v. Hendrickson , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (2015), and our en banc decision in Castro v. County of Los Angeles , 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016), we conclude that the proper standard of review for such claims is one of objective indifference, not subjective indifference. Accordingly, summary judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Individual Defendants sought summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff lacked evidence of their alleged deliberate indifference to the decedent's health or safety. The Entity Defendants also sought summary judgment based upon the plaintiff's failure to show a custom or practice sufficient under Monell v. Department of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). In this regard, the plaintiff had proceeded on two theories which she alleged led to Gordon's death. First, the plaintiff alleged the systematic use of the wrong intake form which resulted in the misclassification and misplacement of detainees. In particular, she claimed the Entity Defendants used a form designed to address alcohol withdrawal rather than one designed for opiate withdrawal. Second, she alleged the systematic failure to conduct welfare checks or "safety checks" from a vantage point which allowed for visual observation of the safety and welfare of all inmates.

888 F.3d 1121

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Individual Defendants reasoning that a due process challenge based on inadequate medical care required a showing of subjective deliberate indifference and that there was insufficient evidence to support that showing. The district court also granted summary judgment in favor of the Entity Defendants on the plaintiff's Monell claim on the ground that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of a custom or practice. The plaintiff timely appealed.

BACKGROUND

The events at issue began on September 8, 2013 at 6:47 p.m. and ended on September 9, 2013 at 11:00 p.m. Within less than 30 hours, Matthew Gordon died while detained in Module C, Tank 11 of the Orange County Jail.

On September 8, 2013, the Placentia Police Department arrested Gordon on heroin-related charges and transported him to the County Jail. Defendant nurse Debra Finley ("Nurse Finley") conducted an intake assessment of Gordon at 6:47 p.m. during which she inquired whether he "use[d] any street drugs." In response Gordon indicated that he used "[h]eroine, by IV, at 3 grams a day." To evaluate Gordon, Nurse Finley used an assessment form designed for alcohol withdrawal, entitled Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol ("CIWA"). She did not use the county's "Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale" ("COWS") assessment form.

Thereafter, defendant Nurse Finley consulted with non-party Dr. Thomas Le (a consulting physician) ("Dr. Le") who issued an "Opiate WD [Withdrawal] Order." Therein, Dr. Le both ordered that Gordon be placed in regular housing rather than medical unit housing and prescribed Tylenol for pain, Zofran for nausea, and Atarax for anxiety. Dr. Le apparently crossed out a section under the heading "Nursing Detox Assessments" which stated "COWS and Vital Signs on admission and daily x5" and instead handwrote "CIWA x 4 Days," that is, Gordon was to receive the ordered protocol for four days. Nurse Finley completed the intake assessment and had no further contact with Gordon.

The plaintiff's nursing expert opined that the county's COWS form would have measured symptoms specific to opiate withdrawal and triggered a need to house Gordon in the Medical Observation Unit where Gordon would have been monitored more closely. The plaintiff's expert further opined that had the COWS form been used, it is more probable than not that Gordon would have been found to be in medical distress hours prior to his death. The plaintiff proffered evidence that the Entity Defendants did not use the COWS form systematically, and changed their practice after Gordon's death.

Following his intake assessment, Gordon waited for nearly ten hours to be assigned a space in the County Jail's general population. During this time a fellow detainee observed Gordon vomit continuously for 30–45 minutes and "curl up in a ball." At approximately 8:30 a.m. on September 9, 2013, Gordon was transferred to Module C, Tank 11 in the County Jail along with a "module card" to advise the deputies that Gordon required medical attention. While Gordon was in Module C, defendant nurse Brianne Garcia, on three occasions, administered the medications which Dr. Le prescribed but had no further interaction with the decedent.

Defendant Deputy Denny ("Deputy Denny") conducted a welfare check of Module C at approximately 6:47 p.m. on September 9, 2013. He then conducted a second and third check after lights out at 8:31 p.m. and 9:29 p.m., respectively. The stated

888 F.3d 1122

purpose of the checks was to "maintain the safety and health of the inmates and the security of the facilities" with "direct visual observation of each inmate...." Deputy Denny testified that he conducted these three welfare checks from a corridor which was twelve to fifteen feet away from Gordon's bunk and was elevated approximately six feet from the Tank 11 floor. The plaintiff's evidence suggests that the checks were further obscured by a glass corridor. In any event, Deputy Denny acknowledged that from his vantage point he was unable to determine whether an inmate was "breathing," "alive," or had "potential indicators of a physical problem."

At approximately 10:46 p.m., inmates in Module C yelled "man down" to the deputies, the man being Gordon. Deputy Denny arrived within a couple of minutes. He testified that upon his arrival Gordon's "face was blue, he was unresponsive and his skin was cold to the touch." Medical staffers arrived a few minutes later and attempted to administer care. At 11:00 p.m. paramedics transported Gordon to Western Medical Center in Santa Ana where he was pronounced dead. The record reflects that defendant Brian Tunque was the supervising Sergeant on the night of the incident but was apparently not otherwise involved in events described herein.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the district court's decision to grant summary judgment de novo. Qwest Commc'ns Inc. v. City of Berkeley , 433 F.3d 1253, 1256 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we must determine whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law, and if so, whether genuine issues of material fact exist. Fichman v. Media Ctr ., 512 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

A. Section 1983 Claims after Castro

With this Court's en banc decision in Castro , we rejected the notion that a subjective deliberate indifference standard applied globally to all section 1983 claims, whether brought by pretrial detainees or by convicted prisoners. Castro , 833 F.3d at 1069–71. This decision addresses the standard for claims brought by pretrial detainees for inadequate medical care.

We briefly recount the jurisprudential history...

To continue reading

Request your trial
897 cases
  • Hawkins v. San Diego Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • February 16, 2021
    ...the "objective deliberate indifference" standard to Fourteenth Amendment claims of inadequate medical care. See Gordon v. Cty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1120 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Sandoval v. Cty. of San Diego, No. 18-55289, 2021 WL 116539, at *7 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2021) (explaining how......
  • Coreas v. Bounds
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • April 3, 2020
    ...not include a subjective component. See, e.g. , Miranda v. Cty. of Lake , 900 F.3d 335, 352 (7th Cir. 2018) ; Gordon v. Cty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2018). In Gordon , for example, the court held that a Fourteenth Amendment claim of inadequate medical care is to be evalu......
  • Baxley v. Jividen
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Southern District of West Virginia
    • December 21, 2020
    ...Amendment are subject only to the objective unreasonableness inquiry identified in Kingsley. "), and Gordon v. Cty. of Orange , 888 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2018) ("While Kingsley did not necessarily answer the broader question of whether the objective standard applies to all Section 1983 ......
  • Seth v. McDonough
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • May 21, 2020
    ...raised in Kingsley and those presented here. See Miranda v. Cty. of Lake , 900 F.3d 335, 352 (7th Cir. 2018) ; Gordon v. Cty. of Orange , 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2018) ; Darnell v. Pineiro , 849 F.3d 17, 33–35 (2d Cir. 2017) ; Banks v. Booth , No. 20-849(CKK), 2020 WL 1914896, at *......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Prisoners' Rights
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...(adopting “objective reasonableness” standard to medical-care claims brought by pretrial detainees), and Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2018) (adopting “objective deliberate indifference” standard to medical-care claims brought by pretrial detainee). 3185. See ......
  • HELL AND HIGH WATER: HOW CLIMATE CHANGE CAN HARM PRISON RESIDENTS AND JAIL RESIDENTS, AND WHY COVID-19 CONDITIONS LITIGATION SUGGESTS MOST FEDERAL COURTS WILL WAIT-AND-SEE WHEN ASKED TO INTERVENE.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 49 No. 2, February 2022
    • February 1, 2022
    ...conduct obvious; and (iv) by not taking such measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff's injuries." (citing Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotations omitted))). See also Carrama v. Reams, No. 20-CV-00977-PAB, 2020 WL 2320174, *7 n.9 (D. Colo.......
  • Pretrial Detainees and the Objective Standard After Kingsley v. Hendrickson
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-2, April 2021
    • April 1, 2021
    ...Cir. 2018) (holding that objective standard governs pretrial detainee’s inadequate medical care claim), and Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding the proper standard for measuring pretrial detainee’s claim of inadequate medical care to treat his opiate wit......
  • RETHINKING THE REASONABLE RESPONSE: SAFEGUARDING THE PROMISE OF KINGSLEY FOR CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 119 No. 4, February 2021
    • February 1, 2021
    ...(Kingsley applies to general conditions of confinement such as overcrowding, sanitation, and nutrition), and Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2018) (Kingsley applies to the provision of medical care), with Alderson v. Concordia Par. Corr. Facility, 848 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT