Estate of Wilson v. Cnty. of San Diego
| Decision Date | 14 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-cv-0457-BAS-DEB |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL WILSON, by and through its administrator, PHYLLIS JACKSON, and PHYLLIS JACKSON, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., Defendants. |
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Before the Court are County Defendants' and CCMG Defendants' motions, respectively, to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (ECF No. 43) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6).[1] (See Cty. Defs. Mot., ECF No. 47; CCMG Defs. Mot., ECF No. 54.) Plaintiffs oppose (Opp'n to Cty Defs. Mot. (“Opp'n”), ECF Nos. 58; see also ECF No. 59) and Defendants reply (Reply in Support of Cty Defs. Mot. (“Reply”), ECF No. 61; see also ECF No. 61). The Court finds resolution of this matter is suitable without the need for oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motions before it. (ECF Nos. 47, 54.)
Phyllis Jackson (“Jackson”) initiated this action on March 10, 2020, by filing the initial Complaint. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) She sought damages “in her own right” as the alleged mother of the decedent Michael Wilson (“Wilson”), and on behalf of Wilson's Estate (“Estate, ” together with Jackson, “Plaintiffs”), as its purported successor-in-interest. (Id.)
According to the initial Complaint, Wilson suffered practically his entire life from a heart disease known as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (“HCM”). (Id. ¶ 21); Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 254, 708 (24th ed. 1965) (defining “hypertrophic” and “cardiomyopathy”). Left untreated, HCM can cause “shortness of breath, ” “heart palpitations, ” “fainting, ” “heart murmurs, ” “atrial fibrillation, ” “mitral valve problems” affecting circulation, “heart failure, ” and, in severe instances, “sudden cardiac death.” (Id.) To treat this condition, Wilson was implanted with a pacemaker and took several heart medications. (Id. ¶ 23.)
For reasons that are not explained in the initial Complaint, Wilson was booked into the San Diego Central Jail (“Jail”) on a date uncertain. (Id. ¶ 24.) The initial Complaint alleged that Jail staff “knew that [Wilson] suffered from [HCM]” and took heart medications to treat his HCM, yet Jail staff failed to provide Wilson with any heart medication or medical treatment during the period of his confinement. (Id. ¶¶ 23-26.)
Consequently, Wilson began having difficulty breathing due to fluid build-up in his lungs. (Id. ¶¶ 25, 29.) Members of Wilson's family-namely Jackson and Wilson's sister, Tujane-grew concerned about his condition following their telephone conversations with him. (Id. ¶¶ 30-32.) They called the Jail to alert officials of Wilson's worsening condition, warning Wilson “would die if he was not taken to a hospital because his lungs were filling up with [fluid].” (Id. ¶¶ 29, 31-32.) Nevertheless, Wilson still did not receive heart medication or medical attention from Jail staff. Instead, the initial Complaint averred that his worsening symptoms of heart failure were treated with cough syrup. (Id. ¶ 40.)[3]
On February 14, 2019, after spending an unspecified No. of days confined at the Jail, Wilson lost consciousness in his cell. (Id. ¶ 34.) Staff attempted to resuscitate him and transported him to UCSD Hospital (“Hospital”) for emergency treatment. Wilson died that same day. (Id.) He was 32 years old. (Id. ¶ 19.) “The [m]edical [e]xaminer determined that [Wilson] died from sudden cardiac death due to acute congestive heart failure that was caused by his [HCM].” (Id. ¶ 35.) Wilson's autopsy revealed that his “lungs were twice the average size, indicating that they had filled with liquid.” (Id. ¶ 82.)
Set forth in the initial Complaint are allegations about “systemic failure[s]” within the County of San Diego (“County”)'s jails (1) “to adhere to the written policies and procedures with respect to providing adequate health care to inmates” and (2) “to investigate incidents of medical neglect, staff misconduct, and deaths.” (Id. ¶¶ 43-44.) The initial Complaint further alleged the County's jails had long-standing “custom[s] and practice[s] of improper and inadequate investigations; cover[ing] up misconduct; and fail[ing] to discipline and train deputies and medical staff.” (Id. ¶ 46.) The initial Complaint cited an audit prepared at the request of the County by the National Commission of Correctional Health Care (“NCCHC Audit”), which details the essential medical-care standards of which the County's jails fall short. Finally, the initial Complaint listed previous deaths and injuries that occurred in the County's jails resulting from the aforementioned pattern and practice of medical neglect and misconduct by jail staff. (Id. ¶¶ 48-87.)
The initial Complaint named as Defendants the County, along with its employees Sheriff William Gore (“Gore”) and Medical Administrator for the Sheriff's Department Barbara Lee (“Lee”).[4] (Id. ¶¶ 9-12, 15.) The initial Complaint lodged nine causes of action: (1) five claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and right of association against Doe Defendants, failure to properly train and failure to properly supervise and discipline against Gore and Lee, and a claim under Monell against the County); (2) state law claims for wrongful death and negligence against all Defendants; and (3) violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act against the County. (Id. ¶¶ 88-102.)
On April 24, 2020, the County, Gore, and Lee moved to dismiss all claims against them under Rule 12(b)(6) (“First Motion to Dismiss”). (ECF No. 12.) This Court granted in part and denied in part that Motion on July 10, 2020. (First Order.) In pertinent part, this Court held that:
On January 15, 2021, Plaintiffs sought leave to file their proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (See Mot. for Leave, ECF No. 33; see also Redline Comparison of Compl. and FAC (“Redline”), ECF No. 33-2.) This Court granted Plaintiffs' request on April 13, 2021 (ECF No. 41) and Plaintiffs filed a final version of their proposed FAC that same day (ECF No. 43).
Although the FAC incorporates nearly all of the initial Complaint's factual allegations, it also contains new and amended allegations bearing upon the Motions before this Court. These allegations (1) modify the nature of the legal relationship between Jackson and Wilson; (2) shed light upon the circumstances under which Wilson was confined; (3) name ten new Defendants and describe in detail their involvement in Wilson's alleged injuries; and (4) modify the causes of action alleged in the prior iteration of the pleading.
As mentioned above, Jackson brought a wrongful death action the basis that she was Wilson's “mother” and he her “son.” (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 6.) The FAC now retracts that allegation. (FAC ¶ 6.) Instead, Jackson alleges in the amended pleading that she was neither Wilson's adoptive nor natural mother but was his “legal guardian.” (Id. ¶ 6.) Specifically, she avers that she had cared for Wilson since he was just three-months old and that, from the time she took custody over him, she had held him out as though he was her natural son. (Id. ().) Jackson alleges that when Wilson turned two his natural mother's parental rights terminated; at that time, Jackson sought to adopt Wilson. However, she instead “opted to obtain legal guardianship in lieu of formal adoption due to the extraordinary medical costs related to [Wilson's] heart condition.” (Id.) Jackson concedes that she is not Wilson's legally adoptive mother. (Id.)
Additionally, Jackson alleges that on January 6, 2021, the San Diego Superior Court in Estate of Michael R. Wilson, 37-2021-00000401-PR-LS-CTL appointed her “special administrator” of the Estate and ordered her to “substitute in as plaintiff” in the instant matter. (Id.; Probate Court Order, annexed as Ex. A to Request for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 47-2.)[5] By the FAC, Jackson, in her capacity as special administrator of the Estate, substitutes Jackson, in her capacity as the Estate's purported successor-in-interest, to represent the Estate in this matter. (FAC ¶ 4.).
For the first time, the FAC alleges that Wilson was confined at the Jail beginning on February 5, 2019 “after being sentenced to two weeks flash incarceration.” (Id. ¶¶ 17, 27 (internal quotation marks omitted).) “Flash incarceration” refers to “a period of detention in a county jail due to a violation of an offender's conditions of probation or mandatory supervision[, ]” Id. § 1203.35(b), or for violation of an offender's conditions of parole.[6] Id. § 3454(c). It is “a relatively new procedure adopted as part of...
To continue reading
Request your trial