M.H. v. Cnty. of Alameda

• Decision Date: 11 April 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 11–cv–02868–JST
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: M.H., et al., Plaintiffs, v. County of Alameda, et al., Defendants.

62 F.Supp.3d 1049

M.H., et al., Plaintiffs

v.County of Alameda, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 11–cv–02868–JST

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Signed April 11, 2014

John L. Burris, Benjamin Nisenbaum, Law Offices of John L. Burris, Genevieve Kathryn Guertin, Gina N. Altomare, Julia Sherwin, Michael J. Haddad, Thomas Kennedy Helm, IV, Haddad and Sherwin, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiffs.

J. Randall Andrada, Aileen Pang, Valerie Lu Ly, Andrada & Associates Professional Corporation, Oakland, CA, William W. Drury, Jeffrey Stephen Hunter, Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros, PA, Phoenix, AZ, Matthew M. Grigg, Nancy E. Hudgins, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins, San Francisco, CA, Kathleen Jane Williams, Martha M. Stringer, Williams & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants.

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: ECF Nos. 121, 133, 134

JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge

Table of Contents

I. Introduction...––––

II. Procedural History...––––

III. Jurisdiction...––––

IV. Facts...––––

A. Arrest and Medical Screening...––––

B. Transfer to Santa Rita Jail...––––

C. Transfer to Isolation Cell...––––

D. Policies and Training Applicable to Deputy Ahlf Concerning Medical Care...––––

E. Referral to CJMH...––––

F. Altercation with Deputy Ahlf...––––

G. Arrival of the Remaining Sheriff's Deputies...––––

H. Transfer to Hospital and Death...––––

I. Coroner's Report...––––

J. Expert Opinions...––––

V. Evidentiary Objections...––––

VI. Legal Standard...––––

VII. Analysis...––––

A. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs—Individual Defendants...––––

B. Monell Claims...––––

C. Supervisory Liability—Dr. Orr...––––

D. Excessive Force...––––

E. Loss of Familial Association...––––

F. Bane Act, California Civil Code Section 52.1...––––

G. Negligence, Assault, and Battery as to the County Defendants...––––

H. Negligence as to Nurse Sancho and the Corizon Defendants...––––

I. California Government Code Section 845.6...––––

VIII. Conclusion...––––

I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises out of the death of Martin Harrison while he was in the custody of the Alameda County Sheriff's Office. Plaintiffs Joseph, Krystle, Martin, Jr., and Tiffany Harrison are Mr. Harrison's adult children. They assert claims for violation of Mr. Harrison's civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California's Bane Act, Cal. Civ.Code § 52.1, as well as common law claims against: the County of Alameda; Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern in his official capacity; Sheriff's Deputies Matthew Ahlf, Alejandro Valverde, Joshua Swetnam, Roberto Martinez, Zachary Litvinchuk, Ryan Madigan, Michael Bareno, Fernando Rojas–Castaneda, Shawn Sobrero, and Solomon Unubun; Megan Hast, A.S.W., a social worker employed by Criminal Justice Mental Health (“CJMH”), an Alameda County employer; Corizon Health, Inc. (formerly Prison Health Services, Inc.); Corizon Health's Regional Medical Director Dr. Harold Orr; and Corizon Health employee Nurse Zelda Sancho.

Before the Court are motions for summary judgment filed by the County Defendants, County MSJ, ECF No. 121, Nurse Sancho, Sancho MSJ, ECF No. 133, and the remaining Corizon Health Defendants, Corizon MSJ, ECF No. 134.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Harrison's minor son, M.H., filed this action on June 10, 2011. Through two amendments, M.H. added Harrison's two adult sons and two adult daughters as Plaintiffs, as well as Corizon Health, Dr. Orr, and Nurse Sancho as Defendants. The operative Second Amended Complaint was filed November 19, 2012. Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”), ECF No. 46. M.H. settled his claims against all Defendants, and the Court approved the minor's compromise on October 4, 2013. ECF No. 109. On November 7, 2013, all remaining Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Sheriff Ahern in his individual capacity pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(a)(ii). ECF No. 117.

III. JURISDICTION

This Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1988, and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims.

IV. FACTS

Many of the facts in this case are disputed by the parties. In reviewing the facts here, the Court will note where facts are disputed. In all other instances, the facts contained herein are undisputed.

A. Arrest and Medical Screening

Decedent Martin Harrison was stopped on August 13, 2010, at 3:55 p.m. for jaywalking by the Oakland Police Department. The officer arrested Harrison pursuant to a bench warrant for failure to appear at trial for violation of California Vehicular Code § 23152(a) (driving under the influence of alcohol). Ly Decl. ISO County MSJ, ECF No. 125, Ex. A at 4. The arrest report states Harrison weighed 140 pounds and was 6'0? tall. Id. He was one day shy of his fiftieth birthday. Id.

1. Medical Screening by Nurse Sancho

Harrison was taken to the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility in Oakland, California. Defendant Sancho, a licensed vocational nurse employed by Defendant Corizon Health (then known as Prison Health Services, Inc.), performed a medical intake assessment, which she memorialized on a standardized intake assessment form. Sherwin Decl. ISO County MSJ Opp., ECF No. 149, Ex. 9, Sancho Dep., 54:10–12; Ly Decl., Ex. A at 2. The form was completed at 5:00 p.m. on August 13. The form contained a standardized set of questions followed by space for a narrative description of the inmate's condition. Harrison's form indicated that his weight was 142 pounds, and that he was between 5' 4? and 5'6? tall. Sancho recorded those measurements after weighing Harrison, although she did not measure his height. Sancho Dep. 67:10–24. Sancho described Harrison as a “medium-sized guy.” Id. She recorded his vital signs as “within normal levels.” Sancho Dep. 66:7–11.

Sancho testified that when she examined Harrison, his demeanor and outward physical symptoms were unremarkable. He walked with a “steady gait,” stood straight, was coherent, alert, and oriented, and calm and quiet. Id. 69:15–23.

Sancho testified that Harrison told her he had two bottles of beer that afternoon, and that Harrison told her “three to four times” that he did not have problems with alcohol withdrawal in the past. Id. 70:1–6. Sancho testified that she asked Harrison what size the bottles were, but forgot to record it on the form. Id. 71:5–7. She also testified that she understood Harrison to have told her he drank two bottles of beer every day. Id. 72:14–15. When she examined Harrison, he smelled of alcohol and his face was “maybe red, but not puffy.” Id. 73:22–24.

Sancho wrote on the form that Harrison drinks every day, and that his last drink was on the day he was arrested. Id. 58:20–22. The form does not state that Harrison smelled of alcohol, what type of alcohol Harrison drank, the amount of daily consumption, the time or amount of Harrison's last drink, or how many years Harrison had been drinking. Id. 58:24–59:12.

Sancho also wrote on the form “w/hx of ETOH w/d,” which means “with history of alcohol withdrawal.” Id. 79:23–80:3. Finally, she wrote “CIWA,” which stands for “Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment,” a protocol used to evaluate and treat those at risk for severe alcohol withdrawal. Id. 79:23–80:3; 86:5–87:5. Sancho testified that she wrote both phrases in anticipation because Harrison told her he drank every day, and that she then crossed them out when he assured her he did not have a history of alcohol withdrawal. Id. 80:12–16. Above the CIWA notation is the word “error,” which Sancho testified she wrote pursuant to Corizon Health training to indicate she crossed the notation out on purpose. Id. 82:13–83:17. Sancho testified that she did not alter the form after her initial screening. Id. 61:9–11.

Sancho spent “three to 10 minutes, or less than 10 minutes” with Harrison. Id. 60:14. She classified Harrison as medical level 3, which means he would not receive any medical follow-up because the nurse found “no medical problem.” Id. 65:5–22. Harrison was assigned to the general jail population. Id. Had Sancho concluded instead that Harrison was at risk of alcohol withdrawal, she would have classified him as level 1, which would have resulted in “prompt attention within 24 hours.” Id. 66:1–4. The CIWA protocol called for an examination by a physician within twenty-four hours, and examinations by nurses every eight hours.Id. 87:3–6. If a patient on CIWA protocol became symptomatic, the patient might also receive fluids and one or more medications as appropriate, including thiamine, benzodiazepines, opioids, and multivitamins as part of the treatment protocol. Sherwin Decl., Ex. 15, Orr. PMK Dep. 43:9–44:7; Sherwin Decl., Ex. 17 (CIWA Form and Orders).

In a declaration attached to her motion for summary judgment, Nurse Sancho states that she explained to Harrison that he could obtain a “slip/sick call form” and notify a deputy once transferred to general population if he needed any medical attention. Sancho Decl. ISO Sancho MSJ, ECF No. 133–1 ¶ 4. The declaration also states that Sancho had already crossed out the notations for “with history of alcohol withdrawal” and “CIWA,” and written the word “error” above the notations at the time that Sancho and Harrison signed the intake form. Id. ¶ 11. Sancho declares that she communicated her crossing out of the notations orally to Harrison as well. Id. Sancho also declares: “I have used a CIWA form for a number of arrestees, but they had exhibited many signs and symptoms of intoxication. Because Mr. Harrison was not intoxicated when I performed his intake and showed no indicators of being at risk of alcohol withdrawal, I did not initiate the CIWA protocol.” Id. ¶ 14. In particular, Sancho declares that she believed Harrison was truthful with her when he told her he did not have a history of problems with alcohol withdrawal. Id. ¶ 15.

2. Alcohol Withdrawal Training

Sancho had been trained to identify the risk factors for alcohol withdrawal, including in January 2010. Sancho Dep. 11:5–13:20. The manual...