Campos v. Cnty. of Kern
| Decision Date | 07 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:14-cv-01099-DAD-JLT,1:14-cv-01099-DAD-JLT |
| Parties | KEANU ETHAN CAMPOS, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF KERN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
This matter came before the court on March 15, 2016, for hearing of defendants' motion for summary judgment. At that hearing, Deputy County Counsel Marshall Fontes appeared telephonically on behalf of the defendants, County of Kern, Jason Ayala, and Joshua Bathe, and attorney Greg W. Garotto appeared telephonically on behalf of plaintiff, Keanu Ethan Campos. Oral argument was heard and defendants' motion was taken under submission.
For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion for summary judgment will be granted in part and denied in part.
The evidence before the court on summary judgment establishes the following. On August 8, 2013, plaintiff's father, Luis Gabriel Campos ("decedent"), was arrested and booked into the Kern County Jail Receiving Facility ("Kern County Jail") as a pre-trial detainee. (Doc. No. 19 at 3.) Decedent had a history of exhibiting suicidal behavior, and had been placed on suicide watch during his prior incarcerations at the Kern County Jail which occurred in 2012. (Doc. No. 40-10.) After being arrested and booked into the county jail on August 8, 2013, the decedent harmed himself by intentionally hitting his head against his cell bar doors, and was subsequently moved to a padded cell located in the basement of the Kern County Jail. (Doc. No. 36-5 at 90-91.)
On the morning of August 10, 2013, decedent was moved to the Kern County Jail B-Deck. (Id. at 90.) B-Deck is an area of the jail that houses both general population inmates and detainees on suicide watch. (Id. at 97-98.) The area has three primary suicide cells designated as: B4-1, B4-2, and B4-3, located along the No. 4 hallway of the facility. (Id. at 87.) Cells B4-2 and B4-3 have loop cameras that monitor those cells, but cell B4-1 does not. (Doc. No. 40-7 at 8.) Decedent was placed in cell B4-1. (Doc. No. 36-5 at 90-91.)
Kern County Jail has policies in place addressing procedures with respect to suicidal detainees. (Doc. No. 38 at 8, ¶ 20.) Those policies require that such inmates wear paper clothing and that Kern County Jail officers monitor suicidal prisoners twice every thirty minutes, recording their observations in an inmate observation logbook. (Id. at 9-10, ¶¶ 22, 24.)
Deputies Sean Collier and Christopher Saldana were working in the B-Deck area from 11 p.m. August 9, 2013, to 7 a.m. August 10, 2013, when decedent was transferred to cell B4-1. (Id. at 11, ¶¶ 25-26.) Deputies Collier and Saldana monitored decedent twice every thirty minutes and noted their observations of him in an inmate observation logbook. (Id. at 16, ¶ 41.) Deputy Saldana performed the last shift check of decedent in his cell at 6:52 a.m. on August 10, 2013. (Id. at 17, ¶ 42.)
At 7:00 a.m., Deputies Ayala and Bathe relieved Deputies Saldana and Collier on the B-Deck. (Id. at 21, 24, ¶¶ 52, 60.) Deputy Ayala performed a face count of all detainees on B-Deck at the beginning of that shift, and has declared that he observed decedent laying on his bed, apparently asleep, at that time. (Doc. No. 36-5 at 25-28.) Deputy Ayala then obtained the nursing call list, and went to visit decedent's cell to ask if he still wanted to be seen by a nurse. (Id. at 32.) At that time, approximately 7:07 a.m. on August 10, 2013, Ayala found decedentsitting in his cell with a cord noose fastened around his neck and tied to the cell bars. (Id. at 36; Doc. No. 40-2 at 3-4.) The noose was fashioned from a section of the electrical cord of a fan located in the hallway outside of decedent's cell. (Doc. No. 40-2 at 9.) The fan had part of a black electrical cord attached to it, but the end not attached to the fan was frayed with the wires exposed and had grey duct tape wrapped around it. (Doc. No. 40-2 at 9.) The cell bars of decedent's cell were measured to be thirty five inches from the vertical pole of the fan, (Doc. No. 40-2 at 9), and eighteen inches from the portion of the fan closest to the cell, (Doc. No. 40-7 at 5). Deputy Ayala immediately called a medical priority and, together with Deputy Bathe, unfastened the cord from decedent's neck and lowered him to the floor. (Doc. Nos. 38 at 24, 27-28, ¶¶ 59, 68, 70; 40-2 at 5.) Deputy Bathe began administering CPR until the nurse arrived at 7:26 a.m. and took over resuscitative measures. (Doc. Nos. 38 at 27-8, ¶¶ 68, 70; 40-2 at 4.) Decedent was declared dead at 7:43 a.m. (Doc. No. 40-2 at 5.)
On October 9, 2014, plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in this action, bringing claims against the County of Kern as well as deputies of the Kern County Sherriff's Department. (Doc. No. 19.) Therein, plaintiff asserts claims against individual defendant deputies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 premised on alleged infringement of decedent's Eighth1 and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as violations of plaintiff's own Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from unwarranted interference in family relationships. (Id. at 1, 8-9.) In addition, plaintiff's FAC includes a § 1983 claim for municipality liability against Kern County. (Id. at 7). Finally, the FAC asserts a wrongful death claim against all defendants under California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60. (Id. at 8.)
Plaintiff seeks to recover funeral and burial expenses, special damages, and punitive damages pursuant to California's survival statute, California Civil Procedure Code § 377.34. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff also seeks damages under California's wrongful death statute, California Civil Procedure Code § 377.61, and the award of attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. (Id.)
On February 10, 2016, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 36.) Plaintiff filed his opposition on February 29, 2016. (Doc. Nos. 37-39.) Defendants filed their reply on March 8, 2016. (Doc. No. 41.) Following the hearing on March 15, 2016, the court directed the parties to file additional briefing clarifying their positions on summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's wrongful death claims. (Doc. No. 44.) Defendants filed their supplemental brief on March 24, 2016, (Doc. No. 45), and plaintiff filed their opposition thereto on March 30, 2016, (Doc. No. 48).
Defendants advance six arguments in support of their motion for summary judgment. First, defendants seek summary judgment in their favor as to plaintiff's survival claims based on alleged violations of the decedent's constitutional rights, arguing that the evidence on summary judgment establishes that the individual defendants did not demonstrate deliberate indifference to decedent's condition. (Doc. No. 41.) Second, defendants seek judgment in their favor on plaintiff's § 1983 claims based on violations of plaintiff's own Fourteenth Amendment right to familial association, arguing that there is no evidence that defendants had the requisite purpose to harm. (Doc. No. 36-1 at 2.) Third, defendants argue that, even if plaintiff could demonstrate a violation of constitutional rights, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (Id.) Fourth, defendants argue that plaintiff has not come forward on summary judgment with any evidence of unconstitutional policies, practices, or customs, sufficient to support a claim of municipal liability against defendant Kern County. (Id.) Finally, defendants argue that summary judgment should be granted in their favor as to plaintiff's state law wrongful death claims. (Doc. No. 45.)2
In opposing defendants' motion for summary judgment, plaintiff advances the following arguments. (Doc. No. 37.) First, plaintiff contends that the evidence on summary judgment reflects that defendants did demonstrate deliberate indifference to decedent's constitutional rights by failing to adequately monitor him while he was on suicide watch. (Id. at 8-10.) Second, plaintiff argues that the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because a constitutional right was violated and no reasonable officer could believe that defendants' actions were lawful. (Id. at 15-16.) Third, plaintiff asserts there was a longstanding custom or practice of failing to follow Kern County Jail policies with respect to suicidal inmates, as well as an inadequate training program for Kern County Sheriff's officers overseeing suicidal detainees at the jail and suggests that the county's policies and jail design was deficient. (Id. at 13-15.) Finally, in the supplemental opposition brief, plaintiff refutes defendants' arguments concerning the wrongful death claims, arguing that the evidence before the court on summary judgment establishes that defendants Ayala and Bathe were negligent, and that liability against these defendants is not precluded by state law immunity for public entities under either California Government Code § 844.6(a)(2) or § 845.2. (Doc. No. 48 at 3-5.)3
Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party "initially bears the burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." In re Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation,627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). The moving party may meet its burden by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically store information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admission, interrogatory answers, or other materials" or by showing that such materials "do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial