State Dep't of State Hosps. v. Superior Court of L.A. Cnty.
| Decision Date | 01 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. S215132.,S215132. |
| Citation | 349 P.3d 1013,188 Cal.Rptr.3d 309,61 Cal.4th 339 |
| Parties | STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Elaina Novoa, Individually and as Personal Representative, etc., Real Party in Interest. |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kristin G. Hogue, Assistant Attorney General, Richard F. Wolfe, Joel A. Davis, Pamela J. Holmes and Paul F. Arentz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Petitioners.
No appearance for Respondent.
Shook, Hardy & Bacon, San Francisco, Chris Johnson, Patrick J. Gregory, M. Kevin Underhill, Rachael M. Smith, Ashley Cornwall and Jared L. Palmer for Real Party in Interest.
In 2007, Gilton Pitre was paroled from state prison. Before his release, the State Department of Mental Health (DMH) assessed whether he should be civilly committed under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA). (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 6600 et seq. ) Ultimately, the Director of Mental Health did not request a petition for commitment and Pitre left prison. Four days later, he raped and murdered plaintiff Elaina Novoa's 15–year–old sister, Alyssa Gomez.
Plaintiff sued DMH and two of its acting directors, claiming the death was caused by defendants' failure to discharge mandatory duties imposed by the SVPA. The superior court overruled a demurrer. Defendants petitioned for a writ of mandate. The Court of Appeal issued an order to show cause, and concluded that while the SVPA imposed a mandatory duty on defendants, the alleged breach was not the proximate cause of Gomez's death. We affirm.
The SVPA authorizes the involuntary civil commitment of a person who has completed a prison term but is found to be a sexually violent predator (SVP). (Reilly v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 641, 646, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 410, 304 P.3d 1071 (Reilly ); People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 1185, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 427, 223 P.3d 566 (McKee ).) The SVPA's purposes are “ ‘to protect the public from dangerous felony offenders with mental disorders and to provide mental health treatment for their disorders.’ ” (McKee, at p. 1203, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 427, 223 P.3d 566.) The Welfare and Institutions Code sets forth the relevant procedures. (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 6600 et seq. )1
Section 6600, subdivision (a)(1) defines an SVP as “a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against one or more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.”2 “Whenever the Director of Corrections determines that an individual who is in custody ... may be [an SVP], the director shall ... refer the person for evaluation....” (Former § 6601, subd. (a)(1).)3 The statutory scheme establishes a multiple-level review for inmates who may be SVPs. An inmate who is referred by the Director of Corrections is then 4 (Former § 6601, subd. (b).)
If an inmate is referred for full evaluation, “[DMH] shall evaluate the person in accordance with a standardized assessment protocol, developed and updated by [DMH], to determine whether the person is [an SVP]....” (§ 6601, subd. (c).) The scope of the evaluation is codified in some detail. (Ibid. ) Moreover, to the designated counsel of the county in which the inmate was convicted.5 (Former § 6601, subd. (d).)
If the evaluators disagree about whether the person meets the criteria, “the Director of Mental Health shall arrange for further examination of the person by two independent professionals....” (§ 6601, subd. (e).) “[A] petition to request commitment ... shall only be filed if both independent professionals ... concur that the person meets the criteria for commitment....” (§ 6601, subd. (f).) When that requirement is met, “the Director of Mental Health shall forward a request for a petition to be filed for commitment” to the designated counsel of the county. (Former § 6601, subd. (h).) If counsel concurs with the recommendation, “a petition for commitment shall be filed in ... superior court....” (§ 6601, subd. (i).) The court thereafter “shall review the petition and shall determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the individual ... is likely to engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior upon his or her release.” (§ 6602, subd. (a).) The court must order a trial if there is probable cause, and it must dismiss the petition if there is not. (Ibid. )
The inmate is “entitled to a trial by jury, to the assistance of counsel, to the right to retain experts or professional persons to perform an examination on his or her behalf, and to have access to all relevant medical and psychological records and reports.” (§ 6603, subd. (a).) There can be no civil commitment under the SVPA unless the trier of fact determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is an SVP. (§ 6604.) A person found to be an SVP “shall be committed for an indeterminate term to the custody of [DMH] for appropriate treatment and confinement in a secure facility....” (Ibid. ) Annual examinations are conducted to assess whether the person is still likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior if discharged. (§ 6605, subd. (a).)
On demurrer review, we accept the truth of material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. We may also consider matters subject to judicial notice. (Evans v. City of Berkeley (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1, 6, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 205, 129 P.3d 394.) In 1996, Pitre raped his female roommate. He was convicted and sentenced to a determinate term in state prison. In 2007, he was scheduled for parole. DOC determined that Pitre was likely to be an SVP, and referred him to DMH for evaluation. DMH, however, did not conduct a full evaluation by two psychologists or psychiatrists, or one of each, as required by statute. Instead, a single evaluator reviewed records received from DOC, and on that limited basis determined that Pitre was suitable for release. The complaint describes this limited evaluation by a single evaluator as a “Level II” screening under DMH regulations in effect at the time. After reviewing a person's records, a “Level II” evaluator could either close a case or refer it for a full “Level III” assessment by two evaluators. Because the Director of Mental Health did not forward a request for a petition for commitment, Pitre was paroled. Four days later, he raped and murdered Gomez.6
Plaintiff sued, asserting claims for breach of mandatory duty (Gov.Code, § 815.6 ), negligence, and negligence per se. She also sought a writ of mandate requiring defendants to comply with SVPA evaluation procedures (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085 ). She claimed that if defendants had conducted the full evaluation required by statute, “any two competent, ethical evaluators would have determined [Pitre] met the criteria for civil commitment,” based on “the circumstances of his 1996 offense, as detailed in the records,” which “clearly and unequivocally demonstrate the sadistic nature of his crime.” She alleged that the single evaluator who reviewed Pitre's case stated that if he had had access to all the records and considered the sadistic nature of Pitre's 1996 crime, he would have concluded that Pitre was an SVP. Plaintiff further alleged that most sexual predators who reoffend exhibit “tell-tale signs,” and that a full evaluation would likely have detected such signs in Pitre.
Had there been two positive findings on Pitre's SVP status, DMH was obligated to submit a request for a civil commitment to designated counsel. Plaintiff claimed that a petition has been filed in every case referred by DMH following two positive evaluations. Had a petition been filed, Pitre's case would have gone to trial, the complaint alleged, and “he would have been civilly committed.”
Defendants demurred, arguing that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action and that they were immune from liability.7 The superior court overruled the demurrer. On writ review, the Court of Appeal concluded that defendants were not immune from suit. It held that the SVPA imposes a mandatory duty to use two evaluators. However, the court also ruled that plaintiff could not, as a matter of law, establish the breach of that duty as the proximate cause of Gomez's death. The court further held that plaintiff failed to show she could amend her complaint to cure the defect as to proximate cause....
To continue reading
Request your trial