Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 1 of 38

1 ERNEST GALVIN – 196065

AARON J. FISCHER – 247391
2 ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP

3

315 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, California 94104-1823

4 Telephone: (415) 433-6830
Facsimile: (415) 433-7104

5 Email:

egalvan@rbg-law.com

afischer@rbg-law.com
6

GERI LYNN GREEN – 127709

7 LAW OFFICES OF GERI LYNN GREEN, LC

8

155 Montgomery Street, Suite 901 San Francisco, California 94104-4166

9 Telephone: (415) 982-2600
Facsimile: (415) 358-4562

10 Email:

gerilynngreen@gmail.com

11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 Estate of RODNEY LOUIS BOCK, deceased, by and

through CYNDIE DENNY BOCK, as Administrator;
15 KIMBERLY BOCK; KELLIE BOCK; HILLARY

16

BOCK; M.B., minor through her mother and guardian ad litem Cyndie Denny Bock; LAURA LYNN BOCK;

17 and ROBERT BOCK,

18

Plaintiffs,

v.

19
COUNTY OF SUTTER; COUNTY OF YUBA;

20 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL

HEALTH (DMH); J. PAUL PARKER, Sutter County

21 Sheriff’s Department Sheriff; TOM SHERRY,

Director of Human Services of Sutter and Yuba
22 Counties; AMERJIT BHATTAL, Assistant Director of

23 Human Services-Health Division of Sutter and Yuba
Counties; BRAD LUZ, Assistant Director of Human

24 Services-Mental Health of Sutter and Yuba Counties;

CLIFF ALLENBY, Acting Director of DMH; DOLLY

25 MATTEUCCI, Executive Director of Napa State

26

Hospital; JOHN S. ZIL; CHRISTOPHER BARNETT; SADOUTOUNNISSA MEER; and Does I through

27 XL, inclusive,

Defendants.
28

No. CIV
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

[479781-1]

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 2 of 38

1

INTRODUCTION

2

Plaintiffs complain and allege as follows:

3

1. Rodney Bock was a loving father and son with a history of mental illness. In spite

4 of his psychiatric problems, Rodney had run a substantial farm, growing peaches, prunes, kiwis,

5 walnuts, rice, and other fresh produce. He was self-employed, and for thirty years ran a

6 successful fruit stand business in Marysville, California. He also operated a successful, and

7 growing, fertilizer business in the area. He provided substantial financial and emotional support

8 to his family, and they remained extremely close to him throughout his life.

9

2. In November 2009, Rodney was the victim of an attack in which he received blows

10 to his head and body. Soon thereafter, Rodney Bock began to experience substantial psychiatric

11 decompensation. He would regularly make erratic and paranoid statements that God and Rush

12 Limbaugh were talking to him and telling him what to do. He experienced delusions that he was

13 being told to kill people, including the President of the United States. As his delusions and

14 paranoia escalated (without any acts of violence or threatened violence towards others), his

15 family repeatedly and desperately sought help from local authorities, including the Sutter County

16 Sheriff’s Department and Sutter-Yuba Mental Health Services.

17

3. Rodney Bock’s mental health deterioration starting in November 2009 led to

18 multiple involuntary hospitalizations for psychiatric evaluation and treatment pursuant to Cal.

19 Welf. & Inst. Code § 5150. During the first two psychiatric hospitalizations, in November-

20 December 2009 and January-February 2010, doctors determined that Rodney Bock required an

21 additional two-week period of intensive inpatient treatment in order to provide appropriate care

22 and to stabilize his condition. According to his treatment team, Rodney Bock’s mental health

23 during this time remained extremely precarious, as he manifested psychotic, delusional and

24 grandiose behaviors, believing that he was communicating with God, and that the government

25 had planted a bug in his head and was tracking him. Doctors and mental health clinicians

26 repeatedly recommended that Rodney Bock be provided a safe and structured setting, intensive

27 treatment, and even an inpatient state hospital placement.

28
[479781-1]

1
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 3 of 38

1

4. In late March 2010, Rodney abruptly and unexpectedly drove from California to

2 Idaho, believing that the FBI was following him, that he was communicating with God and Rush

3 Limbaugh, and that he was “The Avenger” acting at God’s direction.

4

5. Rodney Bock’s family returned him home, and promptly brought him to Sutter

5 County’s psychiatric treatment facility for emergency evaluation and treatment in April 2010.

6 Defendants inexplicably and inexcusably prevented Rodney Bock from receiving the treatment

7 he desperately needed. Defendants discharged Rodney Bock from the treatment facility barely

8 24 hours after his admission pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5150, despite clinical findings

9 that he remained psychotic and despite applicable California state law requiring that he be

10 provided inpatient evaluation and treatment for at least 72 hours.

11

6. Even worse, Defendants discharged Rodney Bock to the custody of the Sutter

12 County Sheriff’s Department, which placed him in a cell at Sutter County Jail. Defendants

13 completed this transfer knowing that Sutter County Jail could not, and would not, provide

14 anything resembling the level of evaluation, treatment and supervision that Rodney Bock

15 required in light of his decompensated psychiatric condition.

16

7. For the next 27 days, Rodney Bock remained at Sutter County Jail, where he

17 received woefully inadequate psychiatric assessment, and essentially no psychiatric treatment.

18 Custody and medical staff, and Rodney’s family members, directly observed his condition

19 deteriorate substantially.

20

8. During this time, Defendants failed to provide the care and treatment Rodney Bock

21 urgently needed, all in spite of readily apparent indicators of Rodney’s deterioration, suicidal

22 thoughts, and need for psychiatric attention, a judicial finding that Rodney was incompetent to

23 stand trial, a court order explicitly directing that Rodney be placed at Napa State Hospital for

24 inpatient treatment, and efforts by his loved ones to get Defendants to protect and provide

25 necessary care to him.

26

9. Defendants’ outrageous actions and failures led to Rodney’s further decline in

27 mental health, his unnecessary suffering, and ultimately his wholly preventable suicide at Sutter

28
[479781-1]

County Jail on April 29, 2010. On the date of Rodney’s death, Defendants’ deliberate 2
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 4 of 38

1 indifference proximately caused Rodney to suffer a violent and psychotic episode, including

2 Rodney’s repeated forceful banging of his head against the cell wall, causing substantial bleeding

3 and hemorrhaging, and his hanging himself in his jail cell.

4

10. Plaintiff CYNDIE DENNY BOCK, on behalf of RODNEY LOUIS BOCK

5 (“Rodney Bock”), as Administrator of his Estate, now bring this civil rights action against

6 Defendants for the violations of Rodney Bock’s Fourteenth Amendment rights, federal rights

7 under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of

8 1973, and for violations of California state law. Plaintiffs KIMBERLY BOCK, KELLIE BOCK,

9 HILLARY BOCK, M.B., LAURA LYNN BOCK, and ROBERT BOCK further bring this civil

10 rights action against Defendants for violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

11

JURISDICTION

12

11. This Complaint seeks damages for the violation of the civil rights, privileges, and

13 immunities, as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States

14 Constitution, of RODNEY LOUIS BOCK, pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988,

15 for violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the

16 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and for violations of California state law. This Complaint further

17 seeks damages for the violation of the civil rights, privileges, and immunities, of KIMBERLY

18 BOCK, KELLIE BOCK, HILLARY BOCK, M.B., LAURA LYNN BOCK, and ROBERT

19 BOCK as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution,

20 and under California state law.

21

12. This Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

22 1343.

23

13. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted herein

24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, since the claims form part of the same case or controversy arising

25 under the United States Constitution and federal law.

26

27

28
[479781-1]

3
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 5 of 38

1

VENUE

2

14. Plaintiffs’ claims, alleged herein, arose in the Counties of Sutter and Yuba,

3 California. Therefore, venue lies in the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

4 § 1391(b)(2).

5

PARTIES

6

15. Plaintiffs’ decedent is RODNEY LOUIS BOCK, who, at the time of his death, was

7 a fifty-six (56) year old citizen of the United States. He was a citizen and resident of County of

8 Yuba in the State of California.

9

16. Plaintiff CYNDIE DENNY BOCK, as Administrator of the Estate of RODNEY

10 LOUIS BOCK, brings this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 377.10 et

11 seq. The survival causes of action in this matter are based on violations of Rodney Bock’s rights

12 under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and

13 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and California state law.

14

17. Plaintiffs KIMBERLY BOCK, KELLIE BOCK, HILLARY BOCK, M.B.,

15 LAURA LYNN BOCK, and ROBERT BOCK are suing individually for violations of their civil

16 rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. M.B., a minor, is suing through her mother

17 and Guardian Ad Litem, CYNDIE DENNY BOCK.

18

18. Plaintiffs CYNDIE DENNY BOCK and M.B. are residents of the County of Sutter,

19 California.

20

19. Plaintiffs KIMBERLY BOCK, KELLIE BOCK, and HILLARY BOCK are

21 residents of the County of Yuba, California.

22

20. Plaintiffs LAURA LYNN BOCK and ROBERT BOCK are residents of the County

23 of Butte, California.

24

21. Defendant COUNTY OF SUTTER is a public entity, duly organized and existing

25 under the laws of the State of California. Under its authority, Defendant COUNTY OF SUTTER

26 operates and manages Sutter County Jail and Sutter-Yuba Mental Health Services (SYMHS)

27 facilities, and is, and was at all relevant times mentioned herein, responsible for the actions

28
[479781-1]

and/or inactions and the policies, procedures and practices/customs of the Sutter County Sheriff’s 4
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 6 of 38

1 Department and SYMHS, and each entity’s respective employees and/or agents. Sutter County

2 Sheriff’s Department operates Sutter County Jail, and is and was responsible for ensuring the

3 provision of emergency and basic medical and mental health care services to all Sutter County

4 Jail inmates. SYMHS is operated jointly by COUNTY OF SUTTER and COUNTY OF YUBA

5 pursuant to a joint powers agreement. SYMHS provides mental health care services, including

6 evaluation and treatment, to individuals experiencing severe emotional distress or acute problems

7 related to psychiatric disabilities, as well as acute psychiatric inpatient care for adults in the

8 COUNTY OF SUTTER and the COUNTY OF YUBA. SYMHS provides evaluation and

9 treatment for individuals in the County of Sutter and the County of Yuba who, as a result of a

10 mental disorder, are a danger to others, or to themselves, or are gravely disabled, as consistent

11 with Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 5150, et seq. SYMHS also provides medical and/or mental

12 health care services to Sutter County Jail inmates.

13

22. Defendant COUNTY OF YUBA is a public entity, duly organized and existing

14 under the laws of the State of California. Under its authority, Defendant COUNTY OF YUBA

15 operates and manages SYMHS facilities, and is, and was at all relevant times mentioned herein,

16 responsible for the actions and/or inactions and the policies, procedures and practices/customs of

17 SYMHS, and its respective employees and/or agents. SYMHS is operated jointly by COUNTY

18 OF SUTTER and COUNTY OF YUBA pursuant to a joint powers agreement, and provides the

19 services outlined above.

20

23. Defendant CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH (DMH) is,

21 and was at all relevant times mentioned herein, responsible for admitting and providing mental

22 health care services, including evaluation and treatment, to individuals placed at DMH facilities,

23 including Napa State Hospital, for inpatient hospitalization and/or other treatment. Such

24 individuals include those found Incompetent to Stand Trial and placed in a psychiatric hospital

25 by court order pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1370.

26

24. Defendant J. PAUL PARKER is, and was at all relevant times mentioned herein,

27 the Sheriff of the COUNTY OF SUTTER, the highest position in the Sutter County Sheriff’s

28
[479781-1]

Department. As Sheriff, Defendant PARKER is and was responsible for the training and 5
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 7 of 38

1 supervision of all Sutter County Sheriff’s Department custodial employees and/or agents and

2 DOES I through XL. Defendant PARKER is and was charged by law with the administration of

3 the Sutter County Jail, with the assistance of a small group of executive officers. Defendant

4 PARKER is and was also responsible for the promulgation of the policies and procedures and

5 allowance of the practices/customs pursuant to which the acts of the Sutter County Sheriff’s

6 Department alleged herein were committed. Defendant PARKER is being sued in his individual

7 and official capacities.

8

25. Defendant TOM SHERRY is, and was at all relevant times mentioned herein, the

9 Director of Human Services for SYMHS. Defendant SHERRY is and was responsible for the

10 training and supervision of all SYMHS and Sutter County Jail medical and/or mental health

11 services employees and/or agents, including Defendants JOHN S. ZIL, CHRISTOPHER

12 BARNETT, and SADOUTOUNNISSA MEER, and DOES I through XL. Defendant SHERRY

13 is and was also responsible for the promulgation of the policies and procedures and allowance of

14 the practices/customs pursuant to which the acts and omissions of SYMHS alleged herein were

15 committed. Defendant SHERRY is being sued in his individual and official capacities.

16

26. Defendant AMERJIT BHATTAL is, and was at all relevant times mentioned

17 herein, the Assistant Director of Human Services-Health Division for SYMHS. Defendant

18 BHATTAL is and was responsible for the training and supervision of all SYMHS and Sutter

19 County Jail medical and/or mental health services employees and/or agents, including

20 Defendants JOHN S. ZIL, CHRISTOPHER BARNETT, and SADOUTOUNNISSA MEER,

21 DOES I through XL. Defendant BHATTAL is and was also responsible for the promulgation of

22 the policies and procedures and allowance of the practices/customs pursuant to which the acts

23 and omissions of SYMHS alleged herein were committed. Defendant BHATTAL is being sued

24 in her individual and official capacities.

25

27. Defendant BRAD LUZ is, and was at all relevant times mentioned herein, the

26 Assistant Director of Human Services and Director of Mental Health for SYMHS. Defendant

27 LUZ is and was responsible for the training and supervision of all SYMHS and Sutter County

28
[479781-1]

Jail medical and/or mental health services employees and/or agents, including Defendants JOHN 6
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 8 of 38

1 S. ZIL, CHRISTOPHER BARNETT, and SADOUTOUNNISSA MEER, and DOES I through

2 XL. Defendant LUZ is and was also responsible for the promulgation of the policies and

3 procedures and allowance of the practices/customs pursuant to which the acts and omissions of

4 SYMHS alleged herein were committed. Defendant LUZ is being sued in his individual and

5 official capacities.

6

28. Defendant CLIFF ALLENBY is the Acting Director of DMH. Defendant

7 ALLENBY is responsible for the training and supervision of all DMH and Napa State Hospital

8 medical and/or mental health services employees and/or agents, including DOES I through XL.

9 Defendant ALLENBY is also responsible for the promulgation of the policies and procedures

10 and allowance of the practices/customs pursuant to which the acts and omissions of Defendant

11 DMH alleged herein were committed. Defendant ALLENBY is being sued in his official

12 capacity.1

13

29. Defendant DOLLY MATTEUCCI is, and was at all relevant times mentioned

14 herein, the Executive Director of Napa State Hospital. Defendant MATTEUCCI is and was

15 responsible for the training and supervision of all DMH medical and/or mental health services

16 employees and/or agents at Napa State Hospital, including DOES I through XL. Defendant

17 MATTEUCCI is and was also responsible for the promulgation of the policies and procedures

18 and allowance of the practices/customs pursuant to which the acts and omissions of DMH

19 alleged herein were committed. Defendant MATTEUCCI is being sued in her official capacity.

20

30. Defendant JOHN S. ZIL is, and was at all relevant times mentioned herein, a

21 psychiatrist under contract to provide psychiatric treatment to SYMHS patients and/or Sutter

22 County Jail inmates with mental health needs. Between November 2009 and April 2010,

23 Defendant ZIL was responsible for completing psychiatric evaluations of Rodney Bock, as well

24 as planning psychiatric treatment and placement, providing psychiatric treatment, and prescribing

25 psychiatric medication for Rodney Bock. Defendant ZIL was responsible for the psychiatric

26 27 28
[479781-1]

1 Stephen W. Mayberg, the Director of DMH at all times relevant to the claims herein, vacated the position in December 2010. Plaintiffs thus substitute Cliff Allenby, the Acting Director of DMH, as a defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
7
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 9 of 38

1 treatment Rodney Bock received at SYMHS and at Sutter County Jail. Defendant ZIL is being

2 sued in his individual capacity.

3

31. Defendant CHRISTOPHER BARNETT is, and was at relevant times mentioned

4 herein, a psychiatrist employed by SYMHS. Between November 2009 and April 2010,

5 Defendant BARNETT was responsible for completing multiple psychiatric evaluations of

6 Rodney Bock, as well as planning psychiatric treatment and placement, providing psychiatric

7 treatment, and prescribing psychiatric medication for Rodney Bock. Defendant BARNETT was

8 responsible for the psychiatric treatment Rodney Bock received at SYMHS and at Sutter County

9 Jail. Defendant BARNETT is being sued in his individual capacity.

10

32. Defendant SADOUTOUNNISSA MEER is, and was at relevant times mentioned

11 herein, a psychiatrist employed by SYMHS. Between November 2009 and April 2010,

12 Defendant MEER was responsible for completing psychiatric evaluations of Rodney Bock, as

13 well as planning psychiatric treatment and placement, providing psychiatric treatment, and

14 prescribing psychiatric medication for Rodney Bock. Defendant MEER was responsible for the

15 psychiatric treatment Rodney Bock received at SYMHS and at Sutter County Jail. Defendant

16 MEER is being sued in her individual capacity.

17

33. The true names and identities of Defendants DOES I through XX are presently

18 unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that each of Defendants DOES I through XX was

19 employed by the COUNTY OF SUTTER, and/or COUNTY OF YUBA, and/or the Sutter

20 County Sheriff’s Department, and/or SYMHS, and/or DMH at the time of the conduct alleged

21 herein. Plaintiffs allege that each of Defendants DOES I through XX was deliberatively

22 indifferent to Rodney Bock’s medical needs and safety, failed to provide necessary psychiatric

23 care to him or to take other measures to prevent him from attempting suicide, violated his civil

24 rights, wrongfully caused his death, and/or encouraged, directed, enabled and/or ordered other

25 defendants to engage in such conduct. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants DOES I through

26 XX violated Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, rights under Title II of the

27 Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and rights

28
[479781-1]

8
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 10 of 38

1 under California state law. Plaintiffs will seek to amend this Complaint as soon as the true

2 names and identities of Defendants DOES I through XX have been ascertained.

3

34. The true names and identities of Defendants DOES XXI though XL are presently

4 unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that each of Defendants DOES XXI through XL was

5 employed by the COUNTY OF SUTTER, and/or COUNTY OF YUBA, and/or the Sutter

6 County Sheriff’s Department, and/or SYMHS, and/or DMH at the time of the conduct alleged

7 herein. Plaintiffs allege that each of Defendants DOES XXI through XL was responsible for the

8 training, supervision and/or conduct of medical, mental health, and jail custody employees and/or

9 agents involved in the conduct alleged herein. Plaintiffs allege that each of Defendants DOES

10 XXI through XL was also responsible for and caused the acts and injuries alleged herein.

11 Plaintiffs will seek to amend this Complaint as soon as the true names and identities of

12 Defendants DOES XXI through XL have been ascertained.

13

35. Defendant COUNTY OF SUTTER is a political subdivision of the State of

14 California, created and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of California. At all times

15 relevant to the instant complaint, Defendant COUNTY OF SUTTER employed Defendants J.

16 PAUL PARKER, TOM SHERRY, AMERJIT BHATTAL, BRAD LUZ, JOHN S. ZIL,

17 CHRISTOPHER BARNETT, SADOUTOUNNISSA MEER, and DOES I through XL.

18

36. Defendant COUNTY OF YUBA is a political subdivision of the State of

19 California, created and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of California. At all times

20 relevant to the instant complaint, Defendant COUNTY OF YUBA employed Defendants TOM

21 SHERRY, AMERJIT BHATTAL, BRAD LUZ, JOHN S. ZIL, CHRISTOPHER BARNETT,

22 SADOUTOUNNISSA MEER, and DOES I through XL.

23

37. Defendants J. PAUL PARKER, TOM SHERRY, AMERJIT BHATTAL, BRAD

24 LUZ, JOHN S. ZIL, CHRISTOPHER BARNETT, SADOUTOUNNISSA MEER, and DOES I

25 through XL, and each of them, to the extent they engaged in any acts or omissions alleged herein,

26 engaged in such acts or omissions under color of state law.

27

38. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times mentioned in

28
[479781-1]

this Complaint, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, employees, servants, joint 9
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 11 of 38

1 venturers, partners and/or co-conspirators of the other Defendants named in this Complaint and

2 that at all times, each of the Defendants was acting within the course and scope of said

3 relationship with Defendants.

4

EXHAUSTION OF PRE-LAWSUIT PROCEDURES

5

39. Plaintiffs CYNDIE DENNY BOCK, KIMBERLY BOCK, KELLIE BOCK,

6 HILLARY BOCK, and M.B. filed governmental tort claims with the State and Defendant

7 COUNTY OF SUTTER, including on behalf of the Rodney Bock’s Estate, on June 24, 2010. By

8 correspondence dated August 26, 2010, Plaintiff KIMBERLY BOCK’s governmental tort claims

9 were rejected. By correspondence dated September 23, 2010, Plaintiffs CYNDIE DENNY

10 BOCK, KELLIE BOCK, HILLARY BOCK, and M.B.’s governmental tort claims were rejected.

11

40. Plaintiffs CYNDIE DENNY BOCK, KIMBERLY BOCK, KELLIE BOCK,

12 HILLARY BOCK, and M.B. filed governmental tort claims with Defendant COUNTY OF

13 YUBA, including on behalf of the Rodney Bock’s Estate, on January 31, 2011. They have

14 applied for leave to present their claims pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code § 911.6(b).

15

41. Plaintiffs LAURA LYNN BOCK and ROBERT BOCK filed governmental tort

16 claims with the State and Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER and COUNTY OF YUBA on

17 January 31, 2011. They have applied for leave to present their claims pursuant to Cal. Govt.

18 Code § 911.6(b).

19

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

20

42. Rodney Bock was born on August 22, 1953, in Sacramento, California, and was

21 raised primarily in Sacramento.

22

43. Rodney Bock was married to CYNDIE DENNY BOCK for 24 years before they

23 divorced in 2004. They had four daughters together, all of whom had close relationships with

24 their father. Rodney Bock also was extremely close with his parents and other family members.

25

44. Prior to his death, Rodney Bock lived on his farm in Marysville. Two of his

26 daughters, KELLIE BOCK and HILLARY BOCK, lived with him year-round, and KIMBERLY

27 BOCK lived with him during extended periods each year consistent with her work obligations.

28
[479781-1]

Rodney’s youngest daughter, M.B., stayed with him several times a month. 10
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 12 of 38

1

45. Rodney Bock worked as a self-employed farmer. He, along with his daughters and

2 employees, worked on the farm, producing peaches, prunes, kiwis, walnuts, and rice. Rodney

3 owned and operated a successful fruit vending business along Highway 70 in Marysville,

4 California. Rodney also sold fruit and other products grown on the farm to vendors.

5 Additionally, Rodney owned and operated a promising fertilizer business, with a growing

6 number of clients in the area.

7

46. Rodney Bock had a history of mental illness, but had managed to maintain a

8 positive family life and to operate his business ventures successfully for thirty years.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
[479781-1]

November-December 2009 Mental Health Problems and Inpatient Treatment 47. In or about November 2009, Rodney Bock was the victim of an attack after an argument with a local resident. Rodney suffered several blows to his head and body. Soon thereafter, he began making erratic and paranoid statements. In one incident, a game warden observed Rodney Bock in an isolated nature area stating that God was talking to him and telling him to kill people. The game warden did not arrest Rodney Bock, but told Rodney’s family that Rodney needed mental help. 48. On or about November 26, 2009, Rodney Bock’s brother, James Bock, and/or other family members, contacted the Sutter County Sheriff’s Department with concerns about Rodney’s mental health, including his statements that God was telling him what to do and that God wanted him to kill people, including the President of the United States. The Sutter County Sheriff’s Department held Rodney for several hours, but released him later that day. 49. Rodney Bock exhibited delusional and extremely paranoid behavior at the time of his release on November 26, 2009. He immediately began wandering the streets, and his daughter, KELLIE BOCK, found him hiding behind a tree. There, he told her that he was being followed and that people were after him. After KELLIE BOCK brought him home, he became agitated: he began yelling, punching and/or kicking holes in a door and the house’s walls. 50. Later that night, Rodney Bock abruptly left his house and went to a local duck club, where he was a member. The next day, family members found Rodney Bock behaving
11
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 13 of 38

1 extremely erratically at the duck club. He had broken the windows of the duck club with a

2 propane tank, and was acting out based upon apparent delusions and paranoia. He refused to

3 return home or to eat. He spent the night in a ditch, demanding that family members leave him

4 alone and stating that he wanted to be with God.

5

51. On or about November 27, 2009, family members attempted to have an

6 “intervention” with Rodney Bock, which included a family friend who was a mental health

7 professional. Rodney told them that he was listening to God. Family members contacted county

8 officials, and Rodney Bock was admitted to Psychiatric Emergency Services (PES) at SYMHS

9 for psychiatric evaluation. Following an evaluation, Defendant ZIL and/or other SYMHS staff

10 determined that Rodney Bock did not meet the criteria for involuntary hospitalization pursuant to

11 Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5150.

12

52. On or about November 30, 2009, family members again contacted the Sutter

13 County Sheriff’s Department based on Rodney Bock’s continued paranoia, delusions, and

14 psychotic behavior. Rodney was taken to the SYMHS Psychiatric Health Facility, where he was

15 admitted on a 72-hour hold for evaluation and treatment pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code

16 § 5150. Rodney was admitted based on a finding that he was a danger to others, or to himself, or

17 was a gravely disabled adult.

18

53. SYMHS has sixteen (16) inpatient beds for mentally ill patients, with an average

19 census of approximately nine (9) to eleven (11) patients. SYMHS clinical, administrative, and

20 supervisory staff members have, or reasonably should have, knowledge of all patients held at

21 SYMHS, and their respective psychiatric conditions, at any given time.

22

54. Following a psychiatric exam, Rodney Bock was documented as presenting as

23 psychotic, delusional, and grandiose. Defendants documented that Rodney Bock had a history of

24 head trauma and a family history that included at least one completed suicide, that his thought

25 process was “quite scattered and tangential,” and that his insight and judgment were markedly

26 impaired. Rodney Bock expressed to SYMHS staff his belief that President Obama was

27 “sending people to kill him.”

28
[479781-1]

12
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 14 of 38

1

55. Following the 72-hour hold, Rodney Bock was certified pursuant to Cal. Welf. &

2 Inst. Code § 5250 to remain at SYMHS for an additional 14 days of involuntary hospitalization,

3 based on a finding that he was a danger to others, or to himself, or was gravely disabled, as a

4 result of a mental disorder or impairment requiring continued intensive psychiatric treatment.

5

56. During his inpatient treatment at SYMHS, Defendant BARNETT and other

6 SYMHS staff evaluated and treated Rodney Bock, identifying serious psychiatric diagnoses,

7 including: Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Manic, Severe with Psychotic Features;

8 Alcohol Dependence; and Cannabis Dependence. An SYMHS Inpatient Services

9 Interdisciplinary Treatment Team documented staff members’ recommendation that Rodney

10 Bock be provided a “supportive therapeutic milieu” to treat his psychiatric condition.

11

57. Defendants did not provide a CT scan, MRI, or any other diagnostic assessment or

12 treatment related to the reported head trauma suffered by Rodney Bock.

13

58. At the time of his discharge on or about December 17, 2009, after approximately

14 two and one half weeks of intensive treatment, Rodney Bock’s psychiatric condition and level of

15 functioning remained extremely precarious. According to the SYMHS discharge summary,

16 signed by Defendant BARNETT, Defendant BARNETT was to continue to provide psychiatric

17 treatment to Rodney Bock.

18 January-February 2010 Mental Health Problems and Inpatient Treatment
19
59. On or about January 14, 2010, Rodney Bock again became delusional and 20
paranoid, this time acting out at a local Applebee’s restaurant. He carried a gun into the 21
restaurant, where he asked for something to eat and then made several erratic statements. He was 22
arrested by police and taken by Sutter County Sheriff’s Department to Sutter County Jail. 23
Criminal charges were filed against Rodney based on this incident. 24
60. On or about January 15, 2010, Rodney Bock was held at Sutter County Jail while 25
continuing to manifest his unstable mental health condition. Custody staff completed Rodney 26
Bock’s Inmate Medical Screening Form. Defendants failed to properly assess or document 27

28
[479781-1]

13
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 15 of 38

1 Rodney Bock’s medication needs and his risk for violence and/or suicide on the Inmate Medical

2 Screening Form.

3

61. On or about January 15, 2010, without appropriate supervision and protection by

4 Defendants as warranted in light of Rodney Bock’s deteriorated psychiatric condition, Rodney

5 Bock was attacked, punched, and physically beaten by another inmate at Sutter County Jail,

6 causing serious injuries to his face and body.

7

62. On or about January 15, 2010, Rodney Bock was referred to SYMHS for a

8 psychiatric evaluation. SYMHS staff completed a “Jail Outreach” evaluation, documenting

9 Rodney Bock’s psychiatric history, including his delusions that he was being directed by God.

10

63. Rodney Bock was subsequently released from custody on bail.

11

64. On or about January 25, 2010, Rodney Bock’s close friends and family became

12 alarmed by his delusional and paranoid behaviors. They observed him making irrational

13 statements, including that people were going to “get him.” Rodney Bock’s family again sought

14 psychiatric treatment for Rodney. Sutter County Sheriff’s Department brought Rodney Bock to

15 the SYMHS Psychiatric Health Facility, where he was admitted on a 72-hour hold for evaluation

16 and treatment pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5150 based on a finding that he was a danger

17 to others, or to himself, or was a gravely disabled adult.

18

65. Following his 72-hour hold, Rodney Bock was certified pursuant to Cal. Welf. &

19 Inst. Code § 5250 to remain at SYMHS Psychiatric Health Facility for an additional 14 days of

20 involuntary hospitalization, based on a finding that he was a danger to others, or to himself, or

21 was gravely disabled, as a result of a mental disorder or impairment requiring continued

22 intensive psychiatric treatment.

23

66. During his inpatient treatment at SYMHS Psychiatric Health Facility, Defendants

24 BARNETT and MEER, and other SYMHS staff, evaluated and treated Rodney Bock.

25

67. Defendant BARNETT and other SYMHS staff confirmed and documented Rodney

26 Bock’s serious psychiatric diagnoses, including: Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode

27 Manic, Severe with Psychotic Features; Alcohol Dependence; and Cannabis Dependence. An

28
[479781-1]

SYMHS Inpatient Services Interdisciplinary Treatment Team documented its recommendation 14
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 16 of 38

1 that Rodney Bock be provided a “safe, secure milieu and appropriate level of observation” to

2 treat his psychiatric condition, including his potential to harm others and his ongoing delusions.

3 Defendant BARNETT and other SYMHS staff found him to be “delusional, grandiose,

4 hyperreligious (being ‘led by God’),” “quite psychotic/manic,” and demonstrating “markedly

5 impaired” insight and judgment. Defendants documented that Rodney Bock was to receive

6 fifteen-minute safety checks and daily treatment.

7

68. Defendant BARNETT documented that Rodney Bock may have “need[ed] CT

8 Scan of head [prior to discharge] (will rec[ommend] that) considering [history] of head injuries.”

9 Defendants never ordered or provided this essential diagnostic testing for Rodney Bock.

10

69. On or about February 12, 2010, Rodney Bock was discharged from SYMHS

11 Psychiatric Health Facility. Although his functioning had somewhat improved during the

12 approximately two and a half weeks of treatment, he continued to suffer from serious psychiatric

13 problems, including delusions and impaired insight and judgment, all of which jeopardized his

14 well being and safety. Defendant BARNETT found that Rodney Bock “still remain[ed]

15 somewhat delusional concerning being driven by God.”

16

70. Defendants BARNETT and MEER, and other SYMHS staff, were to continue to

17 provide treatment to Rodney Bock following discharge, including scheduled psychiatric

18 appointments.

19

Court-Ordered Evaluations to Determine Rodney Bock’s Competency

20

71. In light of Rodney Bock’s serious and ongoing psychiatric problems, the court

21 presiding over the pending criminal complaint against Rodney expressed concern about

22 Rodney’s mental competency to stand trial. On or about January 27, 2010, the Honorable H. Ted

23 Hanson of Sutter County Superior Court ordered that Rodney Bock undergo a psychological

24 evaluation to assist in a determination of whether he was competent to stand trial.

25

72. On February 22, 2010, Dr. Deborah Schmidt, Ph.D. conducted the court-ordered

26 psychological evaluation of Rodney Bock. Dr. Schmidt’s findings make clear that Rodney Bock

27 suffered serious psychiatric impairments, including an active delusional, paranoid, and psychotic

28
[479781-1]

state, emotional instability, and high levels of agitation and excitability. Dr. Schmidt concluded 15
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 17 of 38

1 that Rodney Bock’s highly unstable psychiatric condition made him incompetent to stand trial.

2 Dr. Schmidt concluded that Rodney Bock required further psychiatric assessment and more

3 intensive treatment.

4

73. On or about March 1, 2010, the Hon. Brian R. Aronson of Sutter County Superior

5 Court ordered a placement evaluation of Rodney Bock pursuant to California Penal Code § 1370.

6

74. Dr. Rick Bingham, the Community Program Director for the Sutter-Yuba

7 Conditional Release Program, completed the court-ordered placement evaluation. On or about

8 March 22, 2010, Dr. Bingham documented Rodney Bock’s history of experiencing manic

9 episodes of Bipolar Disorder, his delusions of a special relationship with Rush Limbaugh and of

10 receiving messages from God directing his actions, and his history of alcohol and cannabis

11 dependence. Dr. Bingham recommended that Rodney Bock be placed on outpatient status. Dr.

12 Bingham scheduled an appointment with Rodney Bock for March 30, 2010.

13

75. On or about March 25, 2010, Rodney Bock attended his scheduled psychiatric

14 appointment with Defendant MEER. Defendant MEER documented Rodney Bock’s delusions

15 regarding speaking with God and doing “what God wants him to do.” Defendant MEER

16 documented a plan to follow up with Rodney Bock.

17

March-April 2010 Mental Health Crisis and Inpatient Treatment

18

76. Around the time of Dr. Bingham’s report, Rodney Bock began to experience

19 paranoia and delusions. Based on delusional beliefs that God was directing him and that he

20 needed to meet with Rush Limbaugh, Rodney Bock abruptly drove to his nephew’s home in

21 Idaho. He expressed beliefs that the FBI was following him, that he was openly and actively

22 communicating with God and Rush Limbaugh, that he was going to travel somewhere with Rush

23 Limbaugh by helicopter, and that he was “The Avenger” and would kill someone if God directed

24 to do so.

25

77. Because of his psychiatric deterioration and the resultant trip to Idaho, Rodney

26 Bock missed a March 29, 2010 court date. A warrant was issued based on this missed court date.

27

78. On or about March 29, 2010, Dr. Bingham sent another letter to the court, stating

28
[479781-1]

that he “wishe[d] to retract his recommendations” with respect to the appropriateness of 16
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 18 of 38

1 outpatient treatment for Rodney Bock, as contained in the March 22, 2010 placement evaluation

2 report.

3

79. Recognizing his uncle’s severe decompensation and highly unstable psychiatric

4 state, Rodney Bock’s nephew brought Rodney Bock back from Idaho to California on or about

5 April 1, 2010. Rodney Bock’s family returned Rodney to SYMHS Psychiatric Health Facility,

6 where he was admitted for a 72-hour period of treatment and evaluation pursuant to Cal. Welf. &

7 Inst. Code § 5150.

8

Premature and Improper Discharge from Involuntary Hospitalization

9

80. Upon his admission to SYMHS Psychiatric Health Facility on April 1, 2010,

10 psychiatric staff identified Rodney Bock’s highly unstable psychiatric condition as well as his

11 need for a safe and structured therapeutic setting, including but not limited to inpatient

12 hospitalization.

13

81. By this time, based on his recent psychotic episodes and repeated admissions and

14 hospitalizations at SYMHS, Rodney Bock’s mental health problems were widely known by

15 SYMHS clinical, administrative, and supervisory staff.

16

82. On or about April 1, 2010, an SYMHS Inpatient Services Interdisciplinary

17 Treatment Team confirmed Rodney Bock’s diagnosis of Bipolar I Disorder, Manic with Severe

18 Psychotic Features, and recommended necessary interventions that included provision of a “safe

19 and structured milieu,” “redirection as required [and] oberserv[ation] for safety,” and “[group]

20 participation” in activities. The Interdisciplinary Treatment Team further documented Rodney

21 Bock’s need for a “state hospital placement.”

22

83. Yet, on April 2, 2010, barely 24 hours after his admission at SYMHS Psychiatric

23 Health Facility for a 72-hour period of treatment and evaluation pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst.

24 Code § 5150, Defendants discharged Rodney Bock, transferred him to the custody of the Sutter

25 County Sheriff’s Department, and placed him at Sutter County Jail.

26

84. Defendants completed this premature and improper transfer of custody with

27 knowledge of Rodney Bock’s clear and urgent need for a safe, structured, and intensive inpatient

28
[479781-1]

treatment setting. 17
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 19 of 38

1

85. Defendants’ transfer of Rodney Bock from SYMHS Psychiatric Health Facility to

2 the Sutter County Sheriff’s Department violated the statutory requirement, as provided in Cal.

3 Welf. & Inst. Code § 5152(a), that Rodney Bock “receive whatever treatment and care his …

4 condition requires for the full period that he … is held” pursuant to § 5150, and that he “be

5 released before 72 hours have elapsed only if the psychiatrist directly responsible for the

6 person’s treatment believes, as a result of the psychiatrist’s personal observations, that [he] no

7 longer requires evaluation or treatment” (emphasis added). Defendants completed Rodney

8 Bock’s premature transfer to Sutter County Jail without any finding that he no longer required

9 evaluation or treatment. To the contrary, Rodney Bock clearly required structured inpatient

10 psychiatric treatment. As discussed below, Defendants failed to provide such evaluation and

11 treatment at Sutter County Jail in the weeks leading up to Rodney Bock’s suicide.

12

86. At the time of Rodney Bock’s discharge on April 2, 2010, Defendant BARNETT

13 and other SYMHS staff provided a wholly inadequate treatment plan, stating that the plan was

14 for “law enforcement to come and serve the warrant and arrest [him] and take him to jail for

15 further Tx [treatment] there,” including “further psychiatric treatment with the jail psychiatrist.”

16 Defendant BARNETT documented that Rodney Bock was “telling everyone on the unit about his

17 delusions of the ‘end times’” prior to his discharge. Defendant BARNETT documented that

18 Rodney Bock “remained quite manic and psychotic,” “was quite grandiose and delusional with

19 flight of ideas and quite focused on hyper-religious content,” and demonstrated “markedly

20 impaired” insight and judgment. Defendants provided a discharge plan that included no more

21 than that SYMHS staff would “[f]ollow-up with the Sutter County Jail psychiatric services.”

22

87. SYMHS is responsible for the provision of mental health evaluation, treatment, and

23 related services to prisoners at Sutter County Jail. Defendants SHERRY, BHATTAL, and LUZ,

24 as well as SYMHS clinical staff, were aware of their legal duties to ensure the provision of

25 constitutionally adequate mental health care to Sutter County Jail prisoners suffering from mental

26 illness.

27

88. Defendants PARKER, SHERRY, BHATTAL, and LUZ, as well as SYMHS and

28
[479781-1]

Sutter County Jail staff responsible for providing care and ensuring the safety of Sutter County 18
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 20 of 38

1 Jail prisoners, were on notice of constitutional requirements for the provision of mental health

2 care to prisoners by virtue of the well publicized decision in Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp.

3 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1995), and subsequent orders in the Coleman litigation, which describe in detail

4 the essential components of constitutionally adequate mental health care in California state

5 prisons, including appropriate staffing, provision of services, supervision, and suicide prevention

6 procedures. Defendants, knowing that such constitutional obligations also apply with respect to

7 the treatment of county jail prisoners, failed to take steps to provide constitutionally mandated

8 mental health care and to prevent the foreseeable harm suffered by Rodney Bock.

9

89. In blatant disregard for Rodney Bock’s continued need for intensive inpatient

10 psychiatric treatment, Defendants failed to create or implement anything resembling an adequate

11 plan for providing the psychiatric treatment Rodney Bock desperately needed. Defendants knew

12 that Sutter County Jail could not, and would not, provide the necessary and appropriate

13 placement and treatment that Rodney Bock required, and failed to take steps to prevent the

14 constitutional violations and foreseeable harm suffered by Rodney Bock.

15

Deliberately Indifferent Treatment and Failure to Admit at DMH

16

90. From April 2, 2010 until April 29, 2010, Defendants held Rodney Bock at Sutter

17 County Jail as a pretrial detained prisoner. During this time period, Defendants failed to provide

18 adequate evaluation, supervision, and treatment, even as Rodney Bock’s mental health condition

19 deteriorated dramatically and a court ordered that Rodney Bock be placed at a state hospital for

20 inpatient treatment.

21

91. Sutter County’s main jail, where Rodney Bock was held in custody, has a prisoner

22 capacity of approximately 200 prisoners. Sutter County Jail staff and supervisors, including

23 Defendant Sheriff PARKER have, or reasonably should have, knowledge of all prisoners in

24 Sutter County Jail, and especially those prisoners manifesting psychotic behaviors, at any given

25 time.

26

92. Written reports of all incidents, either major or minor, relating to prisoners and the

27 operations of Sutter County Jail, must be delivered to jail administrative staff, including

28
[479781-1]

19
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 21 of 38

1 Defendant PARKER as Sheriff. Pursuant to Sutter County Jail policy, Defendant PARKER is to

2 receive notice of all such incidents through the chain of command.

3

93. Upon Rodney’s arrival at Sutter County Jail, Custody staff completed Rodney

4 Bock’s Inmate Medical Screening Form. Defendants failed to properly assess or document

5 Rodney Bock’s medication needs and his risk for suicide on the Inmate Medical Screening Form.

6

94. On April 2, 2010, Defendant ZIL, who was to provide essential mental health

7 treatment to Rodney Bock at Sutter County Jail, communicated to a jail nurse, over the phone

8 and without any in-person assessment, that Rodney Bock was to continue his current medication

9 regimen.

10

95. On or about April 4, 2010, SYMHS and/or Sutter County Sheriff’s Department

11 staff documented Rodney Bock’s continued delusions and the need for a psychiatric doctor to

12 complete “further review.”

13

96. Defendant ZIL provided a single in-person psychiatric meeting with Rodney Bock,

14 on or about April 8, 2010, a full six days after Rodney Bock was transferred to Sutter County

15 Jail. Defendant ZIL failed to provide or ensure adequate assessment and treatment for Rodney

16 Bock. Despite readily apparent psychiatric decompensation, no other in-person assessment or

17 treatment was provided to Rodney Bock by appropriate mental health specialists between the

18 time of his transfer to Sutter County Jail on April 2, 2010, and his suicide on April 29, 2010.

19

97. On or about April 12, 2010, Judge Aronson requested that Dr. Bingham provide a

20 revised placement recommendation for Rodney Bock. On or about April 13, 2010, Dr. Bingham

21 recommended that Rodney Bock be placed at Napa State Hospital for inpatient treatment.

22

98. On or about April 19, 2010, Judge Aronson held a hearing regarding Rodney

23 Bock’s competency. Judge Aronson found that Rodney Bock was incompetent to stand trial,

24 ordered that criminal proceedings against Rodney Bock remain suspended, and ordered that

25 Rodney Bock be transferred to the custody of Napa State Hospital, which is operated by DMH.

26

99. Defendant PARKER, in his role as Sutter County Sheriff, has the statutory duty to

27 be informed of any Sutter County Jail inmate that has been found mentally incompetent and has

28
[479781-1]

been ordered transferred to a state hospital. Pursuant to Calif. Penal Code § 1370, it is the 20
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 22 of 38

1 sheriff’s duty to be informed about any order on a prisoner’s lack of mental competency and state

2 hospital placement, and to complete the delivery of that prisoner to the state hospital.

3

100. Defendants failed to complete this court-ordered transfer of Rodney Bock to Napa

4 State Hospital. Defendants DMH, ALLENBY, and MATTEUCCI, failed to admit Rodney Bock

5 as a patient at Napa State Hospital on a timely basis, failed to provide him appropriate treatment,

6 failed to protect him from harm, and failed to ensure that he was timely placed in an appropriate

7 treatment facility.

8

101. Defendant DMH has a practice of unreasonably delaying timely transfer of

9 mentally ill patients placed at DMH facilities, including Napa State Hospital, pursuant to Calif.

10 Penal Code § 1370, and/or unreasonably delaying timely admission of such mentally ill patients

11 to DMH facilities, including Napa State Hospital.

12

102. Mentally ill individuals found incompetent to stand trial and ordered placed in a

13 state hospital operated by DMH have customarily been made to linger for several months in

14 inappropriate and dangerous jail settings, based on an inadequate supply of inpatient beds, long

15 waitlists, and other state failures.

16

103. Defendants instead continued to hold Rodney Bock at Sutter County Jail and to

17 deny him desperately needed psychiatric and medical treatment.

18

104. Defendants ignored an Inmate Request Form, dated April 7, 2011 and completed

19 by Rodney Bock, in which Rodney stated that his housing location was “Soon to be Hell!,” a

20 clear cry for help.

21

105. By April 24, 2010, Rodney Bock’s condition had deteriorated to an alarming level,

22 with SYMHS and/or Sutter County Sheriff’s Department staff reporting that he was unstable,

23 unkempt, talking to himself and to inanimate objects including a sheet of paper, and refusing to

24 take medications. Still, no clinician evaluated or provided treatment of any kind to Rodney

25 Bock.

26

106. Rodney Bock’s family members, including KIMBERLY BOCK, KELLIE BOCK,

27 HILLARY BOCK, LAURA LYNN BOCK, and ROBERT BOCK, visited him regularly at Sutter

28
[479781-1]

County Jail. They observed Rodney’s substantial physical and psychiatric deterioration. They 21
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 23 of 38

1 observed that SYMHS and jail staff demonstrated little to no concern about Rodney’s worsening

2 condition.

3

107. On April 26, 2010, family members visited Rodney Bock at Sutter County Jail

4 observed him in a crisis-level condition. His physical appearance was severely deteriorated: he

5 was unshaven, with bags under his eyes, and was visibly exhausted. He also demonstrated

6 highly delusional and paranoid behaviors, making statements relating to his need to die.

7 Rodney’s family members were deeply distressed.

8

108. In spite of Rodney Bock’s continued decompensation and grave psychiatric

9 condition, Defendants failed to evaluate Rodney Bock and, in spite of a clinically-based

10 placement recommendation and a court order, failed to transfer Rodney to an appropriate facility

11 for desperately needed inpatient psychiatric care.

12

109. Between the time of his transfer to Sutter County Jail on April 2, 2010, and his

13 suicide on April 29, 2010, Defendants failed to complete an appropriate medication assessment

14 for Rodney Bock, failed to provide a diagnostic assessment for Rodney Bock’s reported head

15 trauma, and failed to ensure that Rodney Bock received his prescription medications, despite his

16 manifest and seriously deteriorated mental state, which included active delusions and paranoid

17 behaviors, his talking to himself and to inanimate objects, his stated refusal to take his prescribed

18 medication, his deteriorated physical appearance, and his statements relating to his need to die.

19

110. During his incarceration at Sutter County Jail, Rodney Bock began refusing his

20 medication. Defendants failed to take appropriate steps to provide necessary assessment or

21 treatment, or to ensure that Rodney Bock ingested his needed medication, even as his psychiatric

22 condition visibly worsened.

23

111. Defendants failed to complete an appropriate suicide assessment for Rodney Bock

24 between the time of his transfer to Sutter County Jail on April 2, 2010, and his suicide on April

25 29, 2010, despite his seriously deteriorated mental state and expressions of suicidal thoughts.

26

112. Rodney Bock’s deteriorated mental state resulted from and was greatly exacerbated

27 by Defendants’ deliberately indifferent denial of psychiatric assessment and treatment, wholly

28
[479781-1]

inadequate medication management, and the grossly improper placement in a non-therapeutic jail 22
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 24 of 38

1 environment rather than the inpatient hospitalization recommended by clinicians and ordered by

2 a court.

3

113. Between the time of his transfer to Sutter County Jail on April 2, 2010, and his

4 suicide on April 29, 2010, Rodney Bock was placed in a cell at Sutter County Jail that was

5 inappropriate for a person in his unstable condition and in need of inpatient psychiatric care.

6 Upon information and belief, the cell was located in a corner of the jail where there was an

7 insufficient line of vision to monitor Rodney Bock’s severe and deteriorating psychiatric

8 condition. Officers and other staff were unable to hear sounds and noises coming from Rodney

9 Bock’s cell given its location and the general ambient noises in the jail.

10

114. Defendants, as a result of their own deliberate indifference, negligence, and

11 insufficient training and supervision, failed to follow the Sutter County Jail’s own written

12 policies and procedures, which provided that “Inmates with suspected mental disorders, who are

13 a potential danger to themselves or others or appear to be gravely disabled shall be promptly

14 evaluated and, if clinically indicated, transferred to an appropriate psychiatric treatment

15 facility.… Regardless of the time of presentation, significantly disordered behavior should be

16 evaluated promptly, within twenty-four hours at the latest. The Jail Lieutenant or Jail Facility

17 Manager will be contacted and will make every effort to transfer mentally disordered inmates to

18 appropriate treatment facilities. All attempts and efforts to implement the transfer of such

19 inmates, whether successful or not shall be documented.”

20

115. On or about April 28, 2010, Defendant MEER failed to meet with Rodney Bock in

21 spite of a scheduled follow-up psychiatric appointment.

22

116. On or about April 29, 2010, Rodney Bock again refused his medication, stating to

23 staff members “I don’t take meds.” Shortly thereafter, as a proximate result of his deteriorated

24 and untreated psychiatric condition, of which Defendants were aware, Rodney Bock engaged in

25 extensive and violent behaviors in his cell, causing massive injuries, including significant

26 bleeding and hemorrhaging on his face, several parts of his head, and throughout his body.

27

117. On April 29, 2010, using items in his cell that should not have been present in the

28
[479781-1]

cell of a person manifesting Rodney Bock’s decompensated psychiatric condition, including 23
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 25 of 38

1 clothing that could be fashioned into a noose and affixed to dangerous attachment points on the

2 upper portion of the cell’s bunk bed, Rodney Bock hanged himself.

3

118. Defendants failed to provide adequate supervision and checks to monitor Rodney

4 Bock’s condition and safety. In spite of what was clearly a violent and psychotic episode,

5 Defendants failed to timely respond to provide emergency treatment and care. A staff member

6 finally discovered Rodney Bock’s body hanging from the upper bunk bed in his cell. By that

7 time, substantial amounts of Rodney’s blood covered the floor and walls of his cell.

8

119. Defendants, as a result of their own deliberate indifference, negligence and

9 inadequate training and supervision to render psychiatric and medical treatment to severely

10 mentally disabled patients such as Rodney Bock, failed to timely respond and provide life-saving

11 intervention or treatment.

12

120. Rodney Bock died in his cell on the evening of April 29, 2010, at the age of 56.

13

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

14

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Cruel and Unusual Punishment in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to

15

the Constitution of the United States – Deliberate Indifference to Serious

Medical Needs, Health and Safety

16

(Survival Action – 42 U.S.C. Section 1983)

(Against Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER, COUNTY OF YUBA,

17

J. PAUL PARKER, TOM SHERRY, AMERJIT BHATTAL, BRAD LUZ,

JOHN S. ZIL, CHRISTOPHER BARNETT, SADOUTOUNNISSA MEER,

18

and DOES I through XL)

19

121. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 120, as

20 though fully set forth herein.

21

122. Defendants knew that there was a strong likelihood that Rodney Bock was in

22 danger of serious personal harm, and that he would try to harm himself, because:

23

a. Rodney Bock had a substantial history of serious mental illness, and had

24 been transported and treated by Defendants in light of mental health crises on multiple occasions

25 in the approximately six months prior to his death;

26

b. Defendants completed and possessed psychiatric reports stemming from

27 Rodney Bock’s intensive inpatient treatment at SYMHS, documenting Rodney Bock’s serious

28
[479781-1]

24
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 26 of 38

1 psychiatric diagnoses, his psychotic and delusional behavior, and a family history that included

2 at least one completed suicide;

3

c. Defendants possessed the psychiatric evaluation report of Rodney Bock,

4 which was completed by Dr. Deborah Schmidt, Ph.D. pursuant to a court order, and which

5 concluded that Rodney Bock was suffering serious psychiatric impairments, including an active

6 delusional, paranoid, and psychotic state, emotional instability, and high levels of agitation and

7 excitability, that he was incompetent to stand trial, and that he required further assessment and

8 treatment;

9

d. Dr. Bingham, after rescinding a recommendation that outpatient psychiatric

10 treatment was appropriate for Rodney Bock, recommended that Rodney Bock be placed at Napa

11 State Hospital for inpatient treatment;

12

e. A court order was issued finding that Rodney Bock was incompetent to

13 stand trial pursuant to Calif. Penal Code § 1370;

14

f. A court order was issued finding that criminal proceedings against Rodney

15 Bock should remain suspended, and directing that Rodney Bock be transferred by the Sutter

16 County Sheriff’s Department to Napa State Hospital, a DMH facility;

17

g. An SYMHS Inpatient Services Interdisciplinary Treatment Team found, on

18 multiple occasions, that Rodney Bock required a “supportive therapeutic milieu,” a “safe, secure

19 milieu and appropriate level of observation,” and/or a “state hospital placement” for inpatient

20 psychiatric treatment;

21

h. Defendants knowingly discharged Rodney Bock from SYMHS on April 2,

22 2010, prior to completion of the period for which Rodney Bock was admitted pursuant to Cal.

23 Welf. & Inst. Code § 5150, without a psychiatrist finding, based on personal observation, that

24 Rodney Bock no longer required evaluation or treatment;

25

i. Defendant BARNETT observed and documented that Rodney Bock

26 “remained quite manic and psychotic,” with delusions and “markedly impaired” insight and

27 judgment, at the time of his discharge from SYMHS and transfer to Sutter County Jail on April

28
[479781-1]

2, 2010; 25
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 27 of 38

1

j. Defendants transferred Rodney Bock to Sutter County Jail knowing that

2 they were discharging a severely psychotic and unstable patient to a placement where he would

3 receive little to none of the mental health care he desperately required;

4

k. Defendants prepared a grossly inadequate treatment plan for Rodney Bock

5 upon his April 2, 2010 discharge, knowing that Sutter County Jail could not, and would not,

6 provide necessary and appropriate psychiatric placement and treatment to Rodney Bock;

7

l. Defendant ZIL and other SYMHS and Sutter County Jail staff provided

8 grossly inadequate mental health assessment and treatment during the twenty-seven (27) days

9 that Rodney Bock was held at Sutter County Jail, even as SYMHS and/or Sutter County Sheriff’s

10 Department staff documented Rodney Bock’s substantial decompensation at Sutter County Jail;

11

m. Defendant MEER observed and documented Rodney Bock’s delusions and

12 other mental health problems, but failed to keep a psychiatric appointment the day prior to

13 Rodney Bock’s suicide, and failed to otherwise follow up with or provide essential treatment to

14 Rodney Bock;

15

n. Family members and friends of Rodney Bock communicated to Defendants

16 their serious concerns about his mental health impairments and the related effects on his behavior

17 and threats to his personal safety and the safety of others;

18

o. Defendants were aware of and documented Rodney’s Bock’s history of

19 recent head trauma, but failed to provide a CT scan, MRI, or any other diagnostic assessment or

20 treatment related to the reported head trauma;

21

p. SYMHS and/or Sutter County Sheriff’s Department staff observed and

22 documented that Rodney Bock had decompensated substantially in the days before his suicide –

23 including his deteriorated physical appearance, psychotic behavior, and his writing on a jail

24 Inmate Request Form that his housing location was “Soon to be hell!” – but failed to provide

25 appropriate assessment, supervision, and treatment to prevent him from harming himself;

26

q. Defendants did not take steps to ensure that Rodney Bock was receiving and

27 ingesting appropriate medications;

28
[479781-1]

26
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 28 of 38

1

r. Defendants provided inadequate safety checks, supervision, and monitoring

2 to ensure Rodney Bock’s safety and well being in his cell at Sutter County Jail;

3

s. Defendants placed Rodney Bock in a cell located in a corner of Sutter

4 County Jail where there was an insufficient line of vision and/or insufficient ability to hear

5 sounds and noises coming from the cell, such that they were unable to provide adequate

6 supervision and monitoring of Rodney Bock’s severe and deteriorating psychiatric condition; and

7

t. Defendants did not remove items from Rodney Bock’s cell that could be

8 used for him to commit suicide.

9

123. Defendants failed to provide necessary mental health evaluation and treatment and

10 adequate supervision for Rodney Bock while he was placed at SYMHS and Sutter County Jail,

11 and failed to ensure necessary continuation of care despite his obvious psychotic state, high risk

12 of harming himself, and need for inpatient psychiatric treatment, as determined following a

13 psychiatric evaluation and as ordered by a court.

14

124. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions as alleged herein, including but not limited to

15 their failure to provide Rodney Bock with medical or psychiatric care and/or to take other

16 measures to protect him from physical harm and to prevent his attempting suicide after notice of

17 his psychiatric condition, along with the acts and/or omissions of the Defendants in failing to

18 train, supervise and/or promulgate appropriate policies and procedures at Sutter County Jail in

19 order to prevent Rodney Bock’s and other inmate suicides, constituted deliberate indifference to

20 Rodney Bock’s serious medical needs, health and safety.

21

125. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Rodney Bock experienced

22 physical pain, severe emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of his life, and the damages alleged

23 herein.

24

126. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of the individually named Defendants

25 were malicious, reckless and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of decedent’s rights

26 thereby entitling Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary and punitive damages according to proof.

27

28
[479781-1]

27
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 29 of 38

1

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Municipal Liability for in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the

2

Constitution of the United States

(Survival Action - 42 U.S.C. Section 1983)

3

(Against Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER, COUNTY OF YUBA)

4

127. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 120, as

5 though fully set forth herein.

6

128. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants in being deliberatively

7 indifferent to Rodney Bock’s serious medical needs, health and safety and violating Rodney

8 Bock’s civil rights were the direct and proximate result of customs, practices and policies of

9 Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER and COUNTY OF YUBA, by and through their agencies,

10 employees and/or agents, as alleged herein.

11

129. Such policies, customs and/or practices include but are not limited to an ongoing

12 pattern of deliberate indifference to: the mental health needs and safety of SYMHS patients and

13 Sutter County Jail inmates; the failure to conduct appropriate psychiatric assessments; the failure

14 to create and implement appropriate mental health treatment plans; the failure to follow

15 judgments and recommendations based on psychiatrists’ professional judgment regarding

16 treatment, placement, and supervision; the failure to follow a court’s order to transfer a

17 psychiatrically unstable individual to a DMH facility for inpatient treatment; the failure to

18 provide continued mental health care and supervision for patients released from inpatient

19 SYMHS care; the failure to promptly evaluate and transfer to an appropriate psychiatric

20 treatment facility jail inmates who are a potential danger to themselves or others or are gravely

21 disabled; and the failure to take precautions to prevent suicide among high risk and mentally ill

22 inmates.

23

130. Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER and COUNTY OF YUBA tacitly encouraged,

24 ratified and/or approved of the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, and knew that such conduct

25 was unjustified and would result in violations of constitutional rights.

26

131. The customs, policies and/or practices of Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER and

27 COUNTY OF YUBA were a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries and the death of

28
[479781-1]

the Rodney Bock in that Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER and COUNTY OF YUBA failed to 28
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 30 of 38

1 adequately train and supervise their employees and/or agents to prevent the occurrence of the

2 constitutional violations suffered by Plaintiffs and Rodney Bock, and by other inmates at Sutter

3 County Jail. Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER and COUNTY OF YUBA also failed to

4 promulgate appropriate policies or procedures or take other measures to prevent the

5 constitutional violations suffered by Plaintiffs and Rodney Bock, and by other inmates at Sutter

6 County Jail.

7

132. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned customs, policies and/or

8 practices of Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER and COUNTY OF YUBA, Rodney Bock and

9 Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

10

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Supervisory Liability

11

(Survival Action – 42 U.S.C. Section 1983)

(Against Defendants J. PAUL PARKER, TOM SHERRY,

12

AMERJIT BHATTAL, BRAD LUZ, and DOES XXI through XL)

13

133. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 120, as

14 though fully set forth herein.

15

134. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants in being deliberatively

16 indifferent to Rodney Bock’s serious medical needs, health and safety and violating decedent’s

17 civil rights were the direct and proximate result of customs, practices and policies of Defendants

18 PARKER, SHERRY, BHATTAL, LUZ, and DOES XXI through XL as alleged herein.

19

135. Such policies, customs and/or practices include but are not limited to an ongoing

20 pattern of deliberate indifference: the mental health needs and safety of SYMHS patients and

21 Sutter County Jail inmates; the failure to conduct appropriate psychiatric assessments; the failure

22 to create and implement appropriate mental health treatment plans; the failure to follow

23 judgments and recommendations based on psychiatrists’ professional judgment regarding

24 treatment, placement, and supervision; the failure to follow a court’s order to transfer a

25 psychiatrically unstable individual to a DMH facility for inpatient treatment; the failure to

26 provide continued mental health care and supervision for patients released from inpatient

27 SYMHS care; the failure to promptly evaluate and transfer to an appropriate psychiatric

28
[479781-1]

treatment facility jail inmates who are a potential danger to themselves or others or are gravely 29
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 31 of 38

1 disabled; and the failure to take precautions to prevent suicide among high risk and mentally ill

2 inmates.

3

136. Defendants PARKER, SHERRY, BHATTAL, LUZ, and DOES XXI through XL

4 tacitly encouraged, ratified and/or approved of the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, and

5 knew that such conduct was unjustified and would result in violations of constitutional rights.

6

137. The customs, policies and/or practices of said Defendants were a direct and

7 proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries and the death of the Rodney Bock in that Defendants

8 failed to adequately train and supervise their employees and/or agents to prevent the occurrence

9 of the constitutional violations suffered by Plaintiffs and Rodney Bock, and by other inmates at

10 Sutter County Jail. Defendants also failed to promulgate appropriate policies or procedures or

11 take other measures to prevent the constitutional violations suffered by Plaintiffs and Rodney

12 Bock, and by other inmates at Sutter County Jail.

13

138. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned customs, policies and/or

14 practices of Defendants, Rodney Bock and Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as alleged

15 herein.

16

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

17

Substantive Due Process in Violation of First and Fourteenth Amendments to

the Constitution of the United States – Loss of Parent/Child Relationship

18

(42 U.S.C. Section 1983)

(Against Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER, COUNTY OF YUBA,

19

J. PAUL PARKER, TOM SHERRY, AMERJIT BHATTAL, BRAD LUZ,

JOHN S. ZIL, CHRISTOPHER BARNETT, SADOUTOUNNISSA MEER,

20

and DOES I through XL)

21

139. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 120, as

22 though fully set forth herein.

23

140. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants in being deliberatively

24 indifferent to Rodney Bock’s serious medical needs, health and safety and violating Rodney

25 Bock’s civil rights and their failure to train, supervise and/or take other measures at SYMHS and

26 Sutter County Jail to prevent the conduct that caused the untimely and wrongful death of Rodney

27 Bock and deprived Plaintiffs KIMBERLY BOCK, KELLIE BOCK, HILLARY BOCK, M.B.,

28
[479781-1]

LAURA LYNN BOCK, and ROBERT BOCK of their liberty interest in the parent-child 30
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 32 of 38

1 relationship in violation of their substantive due process rights as defined by the First and

2 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

3

141. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and/or omissions of

4 Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

5

142. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of the individually named Defendants

6 were malicious, reckless and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights,

7 thereby entitling Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary and punitive damages according to proof.

8

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

9

Violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

10

(Against all Defendants)

11

143. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 120, as

12 though fully set forth herein.

13

144. The conduct of Defendants, as alleged herein, violates Title II of the Americans

14 with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq., and the federal regulations promulgated

15 pursuant thereto.

16

145. At all times relevant to this action, the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., was in full

17 force and effect in the United States.

18

146. Rodney Bock was a qualified individual with a disability, as that term is defined in

19 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 705(20), and the ADA.

20

147. The ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, prohibits public entities from discriminating against

21 a qualified individual with a disability in the provision of services, programs, or activities.

22 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 prohibits any program or activity

23 receiving federal financial assistance from denying a qualified individual with a disability the

24 benefits of the program or activity or discriminating against the qualified individual with a

25 disability because of the disability.

26

148. Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER, COUNTY OF YUBA, and DMH receive

27 federal financial assistance as that term is used in 29 U.S.C. § 794.

28
[479781-1]

31
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 33 of 38

1

149. Rodney Bock was discriminated against in the provision of appropriate institutional

2 placement and medical and/or mental health services because of his disability, in that he was not

3 placed in a setting, or provided appropriate services, to reasonably accommodate his disability

4 and treatment needs.

5

150. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants PARKER, SHERRY,

6 BHATTAL, LUZ, ALLENBY, MATTEUCCI, ZIL, BARNETT, MEER, and DOES I through

7 XL, as alleged herein, were malicious, reckless and/or accomplished with a wanton or conscious

8 disregard of Rodney Bock’s and Plaintiffs’ rights.

9

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51

10

(Against Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER and COUNTY OF YUBA)

11

151. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 120, as

12 though fully set forth herein.

13

152. Rodney Bock was an individual protected under the Unruh Civil Rights Act as an

14 individual with a mental disability.

15

153. Rodney Bock was discriminated against in the provision of appropriate institutional

16 placement and medical and/or mental health services because of his disability, in that he was not

17 placed in a setting, or provided appropriate services, to reasonably accommodate his disability

18 and treatment needs.

19

154. The conduct of Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER and COUNTY OF YUBA, by

20 and through its agencies, employees and/or agents, previously alleged, violates the Unruh Civil

21 Rights Act, specifically including California Civil Code Sections 51(f).

22

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

23

Professional Negligence/Medical Malpractice

(Survival Actions – Cal. State Law)

24

(Against Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER, COUNTY OF YUBA,

JOHN S. ZIL, CHRISTOPHER BARNETT, SADOUTOUNNISSA MEER,

25

and DOES I through XL)

26

155. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 120, as

27 though fully set forth herein.

28
[479781-1]

32
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 34 of 38

1

156. Defendant ZIL failed to comply with professional standards in the treatment of

2 Rodney Bock’s serious mental illness by failing to provide appropriate assessment and

3 evaluation, failing to prescribe appropriate psychiatric medications, failing to ensure compliance

4 with those medications, and failing to ensure appropriate treatment, including suicide

5 precautions.

6

157. Defendant BARNETT failed to comply with professional standards in the

7 treatment of Rodney Bock’s serious mental illness by failing to provide appropriate assessment

8 and evaluation, failing to prescribe appropriate psychiatric medications, failing to ensure

9 compliance with those medications, and failing to ensure appropriate treatment, including suicide

10 precautions. Defendant BARNETT also violated professional and legal standards by discharging

11 Rodney Bock from SYMHS to Sutter County Jail in early April 2010 without finding that

12 Rodney Bock no longer required evaluation or treatment, and without ensuring that appropriate

13 treatment would be provided to Rodney Bock.

14

158. Defendant MEER failed to comply with professional standards in the treatment of

15 Rodney Bock’s serious mental illness by failing to provide appropriate assessment and

16 evaluation, failing to prescribe appropriate psychiatric medications, failing to ensure compliance

17 with those medications, and failing to ensure appropriate treatment, including suicide

18 precautions.

19

159. As a direct and proximate cause of this negligence and failure to meet the

20 professional standards of care, Rodney Bock and Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as

21 alleged herein.

22

160. The negligent conduct of Defendants was committed within the course and scope

23 of their employment.

24

25

26

27

28
[479781-1]

33
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 35 of 38

1

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Negligence/Negligence Per Se

2

(Survival Action – Cal. State Law)

(Against Defendants J. PAUL PARKER, TOM SHERRY,

3

AMERJIT BHATTAL, BRAD LUZ, JOHN S. ZIL, CHRISTOPHER

BARNETT, SADOUTOUNNISSA MEER, and DOES I through XL)

4

161. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 120, as

5

though fully set forth herein.

6

162. Defendants have a duty to operate and manage SYMHS facilities and the Sutter

7

County Jail in a manner so as to prevent the acts and/or omissions as alleged herein. This duty is

8

defined by California state law, mental health standards, law enforcement standards and

9

administrative regulations.

10

163. Defendants breached their respective duties, and as a direct and proximate result,

11

Rodney Bock and Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

12

164. The negligent conduct of Defendants was committed within the course and scope

13

of their employment.

14

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

15

Negligent Supervision, Training, Hiring and Retention

(Survival Action – Cal. State Law)

16

(Against Defendants J. PAUL PARKER, TOM SHERRY,

AMERJIT BHATTAL, BRAD LUZ, and DOES XXI through XL)

17

165. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 120, as

18

though fully set forth herein.

19

166. Defendants PARKER, SHERRY, BHATTAL, LUZ, and DOES XXI through XL

20

have a duty to hire, supervise, train, and retain employees and/or agents so that employees and/or

21

agents refrain from the conduct alleged herein.

22

167. Defendants breached this duty, causing the conduct alleged herein. Such breach

23

constituted negligent hiring, supervision, training and retention under the laws of the State of

24

California.

25

168. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Rodney Bock and

26

Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

27

28
[479781-1]

34
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 36 of 38

1

169. The negligent conduct of Defendants was committed within the course and scope

2 of their employment.

3

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4

Failure to Furnish/Summon Medical Care

(Survival Action – Cal. State Law)

5

(Against Defendants J. PAUL PARKER, TOM SHERRY,

AMERJIT BHATTAL, BRAD LUZ, JOHN S. ZIL, CHRISTOPHER

6

BARNETT, SADOUTOUNNISSA MEER, and DOES I through XL)

7

170. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 120, as

8 though fully set forth herein.

9

171. The conduct of Defendants alleged herein, including but not limited to the facts

10 that Defendants knew or had reason to know that Rodney Bock was in need of immediate

11 medical and mental health care, and that Defendants failed to take reasonable action to summon

12 such care or to provide that care, resulting in Rodney Bock’s death as alleged herein, violated

13 California state law, including California Government Code § 845.6.

14

172. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Rodney Bock and

15 Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

16

173. The alleged conduct of Defendants was committed within the course and scope of

17 their employment.

18

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

19

Wrongful Death, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60

(Against Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER, COUNTY OF YUBA,

20

J. PAUL PARKER, TOM SHERRY, AMERJIT BHATTAL, BRAD LUZ,

JOHN S. ZIL, CHRISTOPHER BARNETT, SADOUTOUNNISSA MEER,

21

and DOES I through XL)

22

174. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 120, as

23 though fully set forth herein.

24

175. Rodney Bock’s death was a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned

25 wrongful and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants. Defendants’ acts and/or

26 omissions thus were also a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, as

27 alleged herein.

28
[479781-1]

35
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 37 of 38

1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

3

1. For compensatory, general and special damages against each Defendant, jointly

4 and severally, in the amount proven at trial;

5

2. For damages related to loss of familial relations as to Plaintiffs KIMBERLY

6 BOCK, KELLIE BOCK, HILLARY BOCK, M.B., LAURA LYNN BOCK, and ROBERT

7 BOCK.

8

3. For statutory treble damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a);

9

4. For punitive and exemplary damages against each individually named Defendant(s)

10 in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant(s) and deter others from engaging in similar

11 misconduct;

12

5. For costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 42 U.S.C.

13 § 12205, 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b), Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a), and as otherwise authorized by statute or

14 law;

15

6. For such other relief, including injunctive and/or declaratory relief, as the Court

16 may deem proper.

17

18 Dated: February 24, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

19

ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP

20

21

By: /s/ Ernest Galvan

ERNEST GALVAN

22
LAW OFFICES OF GERI LYNN GREEN, LC
23

24

By: /s/ Geri Lynn Green

25

GERI LYNN GREEN Attorneys for Plaintiffs

26

27

28
[479781-1]

36
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 38 of 38

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial.

3

4 Dated: February 24, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

5

ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP

6

7

By: /s/ Ernest Galvan

ERNEST GALVAN

8
LAW OFFICES OF GERI LYNN GREEN, LC
9

10

By: /s/ Geri Lynn Green

11

GERI LYNN GREEN Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
[479781-1]

37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION 504, AND STATE LAW - NO. CIV

 
 Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 1 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891

ERNEST GALVAN – 196065

2 KATHRYN G. MANTOAN – 239649

AARON J. FISCHER – 247391

3 JENNIFER L. STARK – 267062

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

4 315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor

San Francisco, California 94104-1823

5 Telephone: (415) 433-6830

Facsimile: (415) 433-7104

6 Email:

mbien@rbgg.com

egalvan@rbgg.com

7

kmantoan@rbgg.com

afischer@rbgg.com

8

jstark@rbgg.com

9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

13 Estate of RODNEY LOUIS BOCK, deceased, by and through CYNDIE DENNY BOCK, as
14 Administrator; KIMBERLY BOCK; KELLIE BOCK; HILLARY BOCK; MORGEN BOCK;
15 LAURA LYNN BOCK; and Estate of ROBERT BOCK,
16 Plaintiffs,
17 v.
18 COUNTY OF SUTTER; COUNTY OF YUBA;
19 J. PAUL PARKER, Sutter County Sheriff’s Department Sheriff; LEWIS MCELFRESH,
20 Sutter County Jail Division Commander; NORMAN BIDWELL, Sutter County Jail
21 Corrections Lieutenant; JOHN S. ZIL; CHRISTOPHER BARNETT; BOBBY JOE
22 LITTLE; DAVID CALAPINI; SHAUN FLIEHMAN; RAINBOW CRANE; KATY
23 MULLIN; DONICE MCGINNIS; BALJINDER RAI; and Does I through XL, inclusive,
24 Defendants.
25

Case No. 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

26

27

28

FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 2 of 82

[1126588-2]

1

INTRODUCTION

2

Plaintiffs complain and allege as follows:

3

1. RODNEY BOCK was a loving father and son with a history of mental

4 illness. In spite of his psychiatric problems, RODNEY BOCK had run a farm, growing

5 peaches, prunes, walnuts, and other fresh produce. He was self-employed, and for thirty

6 years ran a successful fruit stand business in Marysville, California. He also operated a

7 successful, and growing, fertilizer business in the area. He provided substantial financial

8 and emotional support to his family, and they remained extremely close to him throughout

9 his life.

10

2. In November 2009, RODNEY BOCK was the victim of an attack in which

11 he received blows to his head and body. Soon thereafter, RODNEY BOCK began to

12 experience substantial psychiatric decompensation. He would regularly make erratic and

13 paranoid statements that God and Rush Limbaugh were talking to him and telling him

14 what to do. As his delusions and paranoia escalated, his family repeatedly and desperately

15 sought help from local authorities, including the Sutter County Sheriff’s Department and

16 Sutter-Yuba Mental Health Services.

17

3. RODNEY BOCK’s mental health deterioration starting in November 2009

18 led to multiple involuntary hospitalizations for psychiatric evaluation and treatment

19 pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5150 (“Section 5150”). During the first two

20 psychiatric hospitalizations, in November-December 2009 and January-February 2010,

21 doctors determined that RODNEY BOCK required an additional two-week period of

22 intensive inpatient treatment in order to provide appropriate care and to stabilize his

23 condition. According to his treatment team, which included Defendants BARNETT and

24 ZIL, RODNEY BOCK’s mental health during this time was extremely fragile, as he

25 manifested psychotic, delusional and grandiose behaviors, believed that he was

26 communicating with God, and demonstrated paranoid thoughts. Defendants BARNETT

27 and ZIL, as well as other county mental health staff, repeatedly recommended that

28 RODNEY BOCK be provided a safe and structured setting, intensive mental health

1
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 3 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 treatment, and ultimately a psychiatric hospital placement.

2

4. In late March 2010, RODNEY BOCK abruptly and unexpectedly drove from

3 California to Idaho, believing that the FBI was following him, that he was communicating

4 with God and Rush Limbaugh, and that he was acting at God’s direction. COUNTY OF

5 SUTTER employees, including Defendants BARNETT and ZIL, documented and were

6 aware of RODNEY BOCK’s alarming and psychotic behaviors.

7

5. RODNEY BOCK’s family promptly brought him to Sutter County’s

8 psychiatric hospital for emergency evaluation and treatment in April 2010. Doctors found

9 that he was “gravely disabled” – that is, that he was unable to provide for his basic

10 personal needs – and warranted involuntary emergency hospitalization pursuant to Section

11 5150. Defendant BARNETT determined that RODNEY BOCK likely required an

12 additional two (2) weeks of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization. Yet Defendant

13 BARNETT discharged RODNEY BOCK from the psychiatric hospital barely 24 hours

14 after his Section 5150 admission, despite clinical findings that he remained gravely

15 disabled, could not take care of his basic needs, and was psychotic. Defendant BARNETT

16 thus illegally discharged RODNEY BOCK from the hospital with the Section 5150

17 involuntary hospitalization order still in place.

18

6. Even worse, Defendant BARNETT knowingly discharged RODNEY BOCK

19 to the custody of the Sutter County Sheriff’s Department pursuant to an outstanding

20 warrant for detention at Sutter County Jail. Sutter County Jail (“the Jail”) is not licensed

21 or otherwise permitted to house individuals subject to Section 5150 involuntary

22 hospitalization. Defendant FLIEHMAN, a Sutter County Jail officer, completed the

23 placement and booking of RODNEY BOCK in the Sutter County Jail knowing that it

24 could not, and would not, provide anything resembling the level of evaluation, treatment

25 and supervision that RODNEY BOCK required given his gravely disabled mental health

26 condition and Section 5150 status.

27

7. Defendant FLIEHMAN placed RODNEY BOCK in a general population

28 single cell with no direct observation for safety, although he knew or should have known

2
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 4 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 that RODNEY BOCK required at least two (2) weeks of additional involuntary psychiatric

2 hospitalization given his psychotic condition and inability to provide for his own needs.

3

8. For the next 27 days, RODNEY BOCK remained at Sutter County Jail,

4 where he received woefully inadequate treatment. Meanwhile, Defendants ZIL,

5 FLIEHMAN, LITTLE, CALAPINI, RAI, CRANE, MULLIN, and MCGINNIS observed

6 and were informed of and documented the severity and deterioration of RODNEY

7 BOCK’s condition.

8

9. During this time, as detailed herein, Defendants ZIL, FLIEHMAN, LITTLE,

9 CALAPINI, RAI, CRANE, MULLIN, and MCGINNIS failed to provide the care and

10 treatment RODNEY BOCK urgently needed, in spite of readily apparent and known

11 indicators of RODNEY BOCK’s deterioration, dangerous refusal of critically necessary

12 psychiatric medications, suicidal thoughts, and need for psychiatric hospitalization.

13

10. Meanwhile, Defendants PARKER, MCELFRESH, and BIDWELL knew or

14 should have known of, yet ignored, a court order explicitly directing that RODNEY BOCK

15 be placed at Napa State Hospital for inpatient psychiatric hospitalization, in spite of their

16 statutory and established duties to effectuate such a court-ordered transfer. Defendants

17 PARKER, BIDWELL, and MCELFRESH further knew or should have known that Napa

18 State Hospital had accepted RODNEY BOCK for prompt admission.

19

11. The outrageous actions and failures described herein led to RODNEY

20 BOCK’s further decline in mental health, unnecessary suffering, and ultimately his

21 preventable suicide at Sutter County Jail on April 29, 2010. The deliberate indifference

22 and other misconduct of each Defendant, as described herein, proximately caused

23 RODNEY BOCK to suffer a violent and psychotic episode, including RODNEY BOCK’s

24 repeated forceful banging of his head and body against a hard cell wall, causing substantial

25 bleeding and hemorrhaging, and his hanging himself in his jail cell.

26

JURISDICTION

27

12. This Complaint seeks damages for the violation of the civil rights, privileges,

28 and immunities, as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United

3
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 5 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 States Constitution, of RODNEY BOCK, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and for

2 violations of California state law. This Complaint further seeks damages for the violation

3 of the civil rights, privileges, and immunities, of KIMBERLY BOCK, KELLIE BOCK,

4 HILLARY BOCK, M.B., LAURA LYNN BOCK, and ROBERT BOCK as guaranteed by

5 the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and under

6 California state law.

7

13. This Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

8 and 1343.

9

14. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted

10 herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, since the claims form part of the same case or

11 controversy arising under the United States Constitution and federal law.

12

VENUE

13

15. Plaintiffs’ claims, alleged herein, arose in the Counties of Sutter and Yuba,

14 California. Therefore, venue lies in the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28

15 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

16

16. Pursuant to Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil Local

17 Rule 120(d), assignment to this division is proper because a substantial part of the events

18 or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the counties served by this

19 division.

20

PARTIES

21

17. Plaintiffs’ decedent is RODNEY LOUIS BOCK, who, at the time of his

22 death, was a fifty-six (56) year old citizen of the United States. He was a citizen and

23 resident of County of Yuba in the State of California.

24

18. Plaintiff CYNDIE DENNY BOCK, as Administrator of the Estate of

25 RODNEY LOUIS BOCK, brings this action pursuant to California Code of Civil

26 Procedure §§ 377.10 et seq. The survival causes of action in this matter are based on

27 violations of RODNEY BOCK’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and

28 on violations of California state law as against COUNTY OF SUTTER and all individual

4
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 6 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 Sutter County Defendants.

2

19. Plaintiffs KIMBERLY BOCK, KELLIE BOCK, HILLARY BOCK, and

3 M.B. are the daughters of RODNEY BOCK. They are suing for violations of their civil

4 rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They are further suing for violations

5 of California state law as against COUNTY OF SUTTER and all individual Sutter County

6 Defendants. M.B., a minor, is suing through her mother and Guardian Ad Litem, CYNDIE

7 DENNY BOCK.

8

20. Plaintiff LAURA LYNN BOCK is the mother of RODNEY BOCK. She is

9 suing individually for violations of civil rights under the First and Fourteenth

10 Amendments.

11

21. Plaintiff ROBERT BOCK is the father of RODNEY BOCK. ROBERT

12 BOCK passed away since the filing of the Complaint in this case. The Estate of ROBERT

13 BOCK is suing for violations of his civil rights under the First and Fourteenth

14 Amendments.

15

22. Plaintiffs CYNDIE DENNY BOCK and M.B. are residents of the County of

16 Sutter, California.

17

23. Plaintiffs KIMBERLY BOCK, KELLIE BOCK, and HILLARY BOCK are

18 residents of the County of Yuba, California.

19

24. Plaintiff LAURA LYNN BOCK is a resident of the County of Butte,

20 California. Plaintiff ROBERT BOCK was a resident of the County of Butte, California,

21 until the time of his recent death.

22

25. Defendant COUNTY OF SUTTER is a public entity, duly organized and

23 existing under the laws of the State of California. Under its authority, Defendant

24 COUNTY OF SUTTER operates and manages Sutter County Jail and Sutter-Yuba Mental

25 Health Services (SYMHS) facilities, and is, and was at all relevant times mentioned herein,

26 responsible for the actions and/or inactions and the policies, procedures and

27 practices/customs of the Sutter County Sheriff’s Department and SYMHS, and each

28 entity’s respective employees and/or agents. Sutter County Sheriff’s Department operates

5
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 7 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 Sutter County Jail, and is and was responsible for ensuring the provision of emergency and

2 basic medical and mental health care services to all Sutter County Jail inmates. SYMHS is

3 operated jointly by COUNTY OF SUTTER and COUNTY OF YUBA pursuant to a joint

4 powers agreement. SYMHS provides mental health care services, including evaluation

5 and treatment, to individuals experiencing severe emotional distress or acute problems

6 related to psychiatric disabilities, as well as acute psychiatric inpatient care for adults in

7 COUNTY OF SUTTER and COUNTY OF YUBA. SYMHS provides evaluation and

8 treatment for individuals in COUNTY OF SUTTER and COUNTY OF YUBA who, as a

9 result of a mental disorder, are a danger to others, or to themselves, or are gravely disabled,

10 as consistent with Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 5150, et seq. SYMHS also provides medical

11 and/or mental health care services to Sutter County Jail inmates pursuant to public

12 contract.

13

26. Defendant COUNTY OF YUBA is a public entity, duly organized and

14 existing under the laws of the State of California. Under its authority, Defendant

15 COUNTY OF YUBA operates and manages SYMHS facilities, and is, and was at all

16 relevant times mentioned herein, responsible for the actions and/or inactions and the

17 policies, procedures and practices/customs of SYMHS, and its respective employees

18 and/or agents. SYMHS is operated jointly by COUNTY OF SUTTER and COUNTY OF

19 YUBA pursuant to a joint powers agreement, and provides the services in Paragraph 25,

20 above.

21

27. Defendant J. PAUL PARKER is, and was at all relevant times mentioned

22 herein, the Sheriff of the COUNTY OF SUTTER, the highest position in the Sutter County

23 Sheriff’s Department. As Sheriff, Defendant PARKER is and was responsible for the

24 hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of all

25 Sutter County Sheriff’s Department custodial employees and/or agents and DOES I

26 through XL. Defendant PARKER is and was charged by law with the administration of

27 the Sutter County Jail, with the assistance of a small group of executive officers.

28 Defendant PARKER is and was responsible for assuring the prompt transfer of mentally or

6
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 8 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 medically ill inmates to appropriate out-of-facility placements, including to mental hospital

2 facilities pursuant to court order. Defendant PARKER also is and was responsible for the

3 promulgation of the policies and procedures and allowance of the practices/customs

4 pursuant to which the acts of the Sutter County Sheriff’s Department alleged herein were

5 committed. Defendant PARKER is being sued in his individual and official capacities.

6

28. Defendant LEWIS MCELFRESH is, and was at all relevant times mentioned

7 herein, the Sutter County Jail Division Commander. Defendant MCELFRESH is and was

8 responsible for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline,

9 counseling, and control of all Sutter County Sheriff’s Department custodial employees

10 and/or agents and DOES I through XL. Defendant MCELFRESH is and was responsible

11 for the administration of the Sutter County Jail, and upon information and belief reports

12 directly to Defendant PARKER. Upon information and belief, Defendant MCELFRESH

13 is and was responsible for ensuring the execution of the Sheriff’s duties with respect to jail

14 operations, including the prompt transfer of mentally or medically ill inmates to

15 appropriate out-of-facility placements, including to mental hospital facilities pursuant to

16 court order. Defendant MCELFRESH is and was also responsible for the promulgation of

17 the policies and procedures and allowance of the practices/customs pursuant to which the

18 acts of the Sutter County Sheriff’s Department alleged herein were committed. Defendant

19 LEWIS MCELFRESH was at all relevant times mentioned herein the Jail Facility Manager

20 at Sutter County Jail. Pursuant to the Jail’s policies and procedures and upon information

21 and belief, Defendant MCELFRESH was responsible for reviewing, processing, and

22 effectuating court orders that included court-ordered placement of mentally ill Jail inmates

23 in a psychiatric hospital. Upon information and belief, Defendant MCELFRESH reviewed

24 and was charged with effectuating the court-ordered state psychiatric hospital placement of

25 RODNEY BOCK in April 2010, and subsequently failed to take necessary steps to

26 effectuate the order or otherwise provide RODNEY BOCK with necessary psychiatric

27 treatment. Defendant MCELFRESH is being sued in his individual capacity.

28

29. Defendant NORMAN BIDWELL is, and was at all relevant times mentioned

7
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 9 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 herein, the Sutter County Jail Corrections Lieutenant. Defendant BIDWELL is and was

2 the second in command at Sutter County Jail. He is and was responsible for the hiring,

3 screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of all Sutter

4 County Sheriff’s Department custodial employees and/or agents and DOES I through XL.

5 Upon information and belief, Defendant BIDWELL is and was responsible for the

6 administration of the Sutter County Jail, and reports directly to Defendants MCELFRESH

7 and PARKER. Upon information and belief, Defendant BIDWELL is and was responsible

8 for ensuring the execution of the Sheriff’s duties with respect to jail operations, including

9 the prompt transfer of mentally or medically ill inmates to appropriate out-of-facility

10 placements, including to mental hospital facilities pursuant to court order. Defendant

11 BIDWELL is and was also responsible for the promulgation of the policies and procedures

12 and allowance of the practices/customs pursuant to which the acts of the Sutter County

13 Sheriff’s Department alleged herein were committed. Defendant BIDWELL is being sued

14 in his individual capacity.

15

30. Defendant JOHN S. ZIL is, and was at all relevant times mentioned herein, a

16 psychiatrist under contract to provide psychiatric treatment to SYMHS patients and/or

17 Sutter County Jail inmates with mental health needs. Between November 2009 and April

18 2010, Defendant ZIL was responsible for completing psychiatric evaluations of RODNEY

19 BOCK, as well as planning psychiatric treatment and placement, providing psychiatric

20 treatment, and prescribing psychiatric medication for RODNEY BOCK. Defendant ZIL

21 observed and was repeatedly informed of RODNEY BOCK’s gravely disabled psychiatric

22 condition, his inability to care for his own needs, his Section 5150 involuntary

23 hospitalization, and his further deterioration while detained at Sutter County Jail.

24 Defendant ZIL was RODNEY BOCK’s treating physician at Sutter County Jail, and acted

25 with deliberate indifference to RODNEY BOCK’s serious treatment needs despite

26 Defendant ZIL’s direct knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm, including suicide

27 and death. Defendant ZIL is being sued in his individual capacity.

28

31. Defendant CHRISTOPHER BARNETT is, and was at relevant times

8
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 10 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 mentioned herein, a psychiatrist employed by SYMHS. Between November 2009 and

2 April 2010, Defendant BARNETT was responsible for completing multiple psychiatric

3 evaluations of RODNEY BOCK, as well as planning psychiatric treatment and placement,

4 providing psychiatric treatment, and prescribing psychiatric medication for RODNEY

5 BOCK. Defendant BARNETT evaluated RODNEY BOCK and had direct knowledge of

6 his gravely disabled psychiatric condition and his inability to care for his own needs

7 immediately prior to the April 2010 Jail detention. Defendant BARNETT ordered the

8 involuntary emergency psychiatric hospitalization of RODNEY BOCK for at least 72

9 hours of treatment pursuant to Section 5150. Defendant BARNETT in fact identified

10 RODNEY BOCK’s continued gravely disability and need for at least two (2) weeks of

11 further psychiatric hospitalization. Yet, Defendant BARNETT improperly and illegally

12 took steps to discharge RODNEY BOCK for transfer to Sutter County Jail while the

13 Section 5150 involuntary hospitalization was still in place and without the statutorily

14 required finding the treatment was no longer required, a violation of Cal. Welf. & Inst.

15 Code § 5152. Defendant BARNETT acted with deliberate indifference to RODNEY

16 BOCK’s serious treatment needs despite Defendant BARNETT’s knowledge of a

17 substantial risk of serious harm, including suicide and death. Defendant BARNETT is

18 being sued in his individual capacity.

19

32. Defendant BOBBY JOE LITTLE was at all relevant times mentioned herein

20 a Deputy Officer at Sutter County Jail. Defendant LITTLE had direct contact with

21 RODNEY BOCK in the hours and/or days leading up to his death, had actual notice of

22 RODNEY BOCK’s psychotic condition and need for emergency treatment and psychiatric

23 hospitalization, and acted with deliberate indifference by failing to take necessary steps to

24 provide such treatment. Defendant LITTLE is being sued in his individual capacity.

25

33. Defendant DAVID CALAPINI was at all relevant times mentioned herein a

26 Deputy Officer at Sutter County Jail. Defendant CALAPINI had direct contact with

27 RODNEY BOCK in the hours and/or days leading up to his death, had actual notice of

28 RODNEY BOCK’s psychotic condition and need for emergency treatment and psychiatric

9
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 11 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 hospitalization, and acted with deliberate indifference by failing to take necessary steps to

2 provide such treatment. Defendant CALAPINI is being sued in his individual capacity.

3

34. Defendant SHAUN FLIEHMAN was at all relevant times mentioned herein

4 a Deputy Officer at Sutter County Jail. Defendant FLIEHMAN had direct contact with

5 RODNEY BOCK at the time of his placement and booking at Sutter County Jail, and had

6 actual notice of RODNEY BOCK’s psychotic condition and need for emergency treatment

7 and psychiatric hospitalization. Defendant FLIEHMAN acted illegally and with deliberate

8 indifference by accepting RODNEY BOCK at the Jail as a patient currently subject to

9 Section 5150 psychiatric hospitalization, by failing to properly document RODNEY

10 BOCK’s obvious and manifest condition and treatment needs, by placing him in a general

11 population single cell without appropriate observation and safety precautions, and by

12 failing to take steps to provide necessary treatment. Defendant FLIEHMAN is being sued

13 in his individual capacity.

14

35. Defendant RAINBOW CRANE was at all relevant times mentioned herein a

15 Sutter County employee charged with evaluating medically and/or mentally ill inmates at

16 Sutter County Jail. Defendant CRANE had direct contact with RODNEY BOCK on

17 multiple occasions during his April 2010 detention to assess his condition and treatment

18 needs. Shortly before RODNEY BOCK’s death, Defendant CRANE was informed and

19 observed that RODNEY BOCK’s condition had deteriorated to an alarming level, and that

20 he was unstable, talking to himself, refusing critical medications, experiencing delusions

21 and hallucinations, and making alarming statements suggesting suicidal thoughts.

22 Defendant CRANE knew or should have known that RODNEY BOCK was at serious risk

23 of self-harm and suicide and that he required immediate treatment, and acted with

24 deliberate indifference by failing to take necessary steps to provide such treatment.

25 Defendant CRANE is being sued in her individual capacity.

26

36. Defendant KATY MULLIN was at all relevant times mentioned herein a

27 Licensed Vocational Nurse at Sutter County Jail. Defendant MULLIN had direct contact

28 with RODNEY BOCK in the hours and/or days leading up to his death, and had actual

10
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 12 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 notice of RODNEY BOCK’s serious mental illness and repeated refusals of critically

2 necessary psychiatric medications. Defendant MULLIN knew or should have known that

3 RODNEY BOCK was at serious risk of self-harm and suicide and that he required

4 immediate treatment, and acted with deliberate indifference by failing to take necessary

5 steps to provide such treatment. Defendant MULLIN is being sued in her individual

6 capacity.

7

37. Defendant DONICE MCGINNIS was at all relevant times mentioned herein

8 a Licensed Vocational Nurse at Sutter County Jail. Defendant MCGINNIS had direct

9 contact with RODNEY BOCK in the hours and/or days leading up to his death, and had

10 actual notice of RODNEY BOCK’s serious mental illness and repeated refusals of

11 critically necessary psychiatric medications. Defendant MCGINNIS knew or should have

12 known that RODNEY BOCK was at serious risk of self-harm and suicide and that he

13 required immediate treatment, and acted with deliberate indifference by failing to take

14 necessary steps to provide such treatment. Defendant MCGINNIS is being sued in her

15 individual capacity.

16

38. Defendant BALJINDER RAI was at all relevant times mentioned herein a

17 Deputy Officer at Sutter County Jail. Defendant RAI had direct contact with RODNEY

18 BOCK in the hours and/or days leading up to his death, had actual notice of RODNEY

19 BOCK’s psychotic condition, risk for suicide, and need for emergency treatment and

20 psychiatric hospitalization, and acted with deliberate indifference by failing to take

21 necessary steps to provide such treatment. He was specifically told that RODNEY BOCK

22 was acting suicidal and urgently needed to be seen and provided help given his psychotic

23 condition, yet did nothing to summon or provide plainly indicated and desperately needed

24 psychiatric care. Defendant RAI is being sued in his individual capacity.

25

39. The true names and identities of Defendants DOES I through XX are

26 presently unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that each of Defendants DOES I through

27 XX was employed by the COUNTY OF SUTTER, and/or COUNTY OF YUBA, and/or

28 the Sutter County Sheriff’s Department, and/or SYMHS at the time of the conduct alleged

11
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 13 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 herein. Plaintiffs allege that each of Defendants DOES I through XX was deliberately

2 indifferent to RODNEY BOCK’s medical needs and safety, failed to provide necessary

3 psychiatric care to him or take other measures to prevent him from attempting suicide,

4 violated his civil rights, wrongfully caused his death, and/or encouraged, directed, enabled

5 and/or ordered other defendants to engage in such conduct. Plaintiffs further allege that

6 Defendants DOES I through XX violated Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment

7 rights, and rights under California state law. Plaintiffs will seek to amend this Complaint

8 as soon as the true names and identities of Defendants DOES I through XX have been

9 ascertained.

10

40. The true names and identities of Defendants DOES XXI though XL are

11 presently unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that each of Defendants DOES XXI

12 through XL was employed by the COUNTY OF SUTTER, and/or COUNTY OF YUBA,

13 and/or the Sutter County Sheriff’s Department, and/or SYMHS at the time of the conduct

14 alleged herein. Plaintiffs allege that each of Defendants DOES XXI through XL was

15 responsible for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline,

16 counseling, and control of medical, mental health, and jail custody employees and/or

17 agents involved in the conduct alleged herein. Plaintiffs allege that each of Defendants

18 DOES XXI through XL was also responsible for and caused the acts and injuries alleged

19 herein. Plaintiffs will seek to amend this Complaint as soon as the true names and

20 identities of Defendants DOES XXI through XL have been ascertained.

21

41. Defendant COUNTY OF SUTTER is a political subdivision of the State of

22 California, created and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of California. At all

23 times relevant to the instant complaint, Defendant COUNTY OF SUTTER employed

24 Defendants J. PAUL PARKER, LEWIS MCELFRESH, NORMAN BIDWELL, JOHN S.

25 ZIL, CHRISTOPHER BARNETT, BOBBY JOE LITTLE, DAVID CALAPINI, SHAUN

26 FLIEHMAN, BALJINDER RAI, RAINBOW CRANE, KATY MULLIN, DONICE

27 MCGINNIS, and DOES I through XL.

28

42. Defendant COUNTY OF YUBA is a political subdivision of the State of

12
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 14 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 California, created and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of California. At all

2 times relevant to the instant complaint, Defendant COUNTY OF YUBA employed

3 Defendants JOHN S. ZIL, CHRISTOPHER BARNETT, and DOES I through XL.

4

43. Defendants J. PAUL PARKER, LEWIS MCELFRESH, NORMAN

5 BIDWELL, JOHN S. ZIL, CHRISTOPHER BARNETT, BOBBY JOE LITTLE, DAVID

6 CALAPINI, SHAUN FLIEHMAN, BALJINDER RAI, RAINBOW CRANE, KATY

7 MULLIN, DONICE MCGINNIS, and DOES I through XL, and each of them, to the extent

8 they engaged in any acts or omissions alleged herein, engaged in such acts or omissions

9 under color of state law.

10

44. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times

11 mentioned in this Complaint, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, employees,

12 servants, joint venturers, partners and/or co-conspirators of the other Defendants named in

13 this Complaint and that at all times, each of the Defendants was acting within the course

14 and scope of said relationship with Defendants.

15 EXHAUSTION OF PRE-LAWSUIT PROCEDURES FOR STATE LAW CLAIMS

16

45. Plaintiffs CYNDIE DENNY BOCK, KIMBERLY BOCK, KELLIE BOCK,

17 HILLARY BOCK, and M.B. filed governmental tort claims with the State and Defendant

18 COUNTY OF SUTTER, including on behalf of the ESTATE OF RODNEY BOCK, on

19 June 24, 2010. By correspondence dated August 26, 2010, Plaintiff KIMBERLY BOCK’s

20 governmental tort claims were rejected. By correspondence dated September 23, 2010,

21 Plaintiffs CYNDIE DENNY BOCK, KELLIE BOCK, HILLARY BOCK, and M.B.’s

22 governmental tort claims were rejected.

23

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

24

46. RODNEY BOCK was born on August 22, 1953, in Sacramento, California,

25 and was raised primarily in Sacramento.

26

47. RODNEY BOCK and CYNDIE DENNY BOCK had four daughters

27 together, all of whom had extremely close relationships with their father. RODNEY

28 BOCK also was extremely close with his parents and other family members.

13
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 15 of 82

[1126588-2]

1

48. Prior to his death, RODNEY BOCK lived on his farm in Marysville,

2 California. Two of his daughters, KELLIE BOCK and HILLARY BOCK, lived with him

3 year-round, and KIMBERLY BOCK lived with him during extended periods each year

4 consistent with her work obligations. RODNEY BOCK’s youngest daughter, M.B., stayed

5 with him several times a month.

6

49. RODNEY BOCK worked as a self-employed farmer. He, along with his

7 daughters and employees, worked on the farm growing peaches, prunes, walnuts, and other

8 fresh produce. RODNEY BOCK owned and operated a successful fruit vending business

9 along Highway 70 in Marysville, California. RODNEY BOCK also sold fruit and other

10 products grown on the farm to vendors. Additionally, RODNEY BOCK owned and

11 operated a promising fertilizer business, with a growing number of clients in the area.

12

50. RODNEY BOCK had a history of mental illness, but had managed to

13 maintain a positive family life and to operate his business ventures successfully for thirty

14 (30) years.

15 November-December 2009 Mental Health Problems and Section 5150 Hospitalization

16

51. In or about November 2009, RODNEY BOCK was the victim of an attack

17 after an argument with a local resident. RODNEY BOCK suffered several blows to his

18 head and body. Soon thereafter, he began making erratic and paranoid statements. In one

19 incident, a game warden observed RODNEY BOCK in an isolated nature area stating that

20 God was talking to him and telling him to kill people. The game warden did not arrest

21 RODNEY BOCK, but told RODNEY BOCK’s family that RODNEY BOCK needed

22 mental help.

23

52. On or about November 26, 2009, RODNEY BOCK’s brother, James Bock,

24 and/or other family members contacted the Sutter County Sheriff’s Department with

25 concerns about RODNEY BOCK’s mental health, including his statements that God was

26 telling him what to do. The Sutter County Sheriff’s Department held RODNEY BOCK for

27 several hours, and completed and maintained documentation regarding his mental health

28 problems.

14
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 16 of 82

[1126588-2]

1

53. RODNEY BOCK exhibited delusional and extremely paranoid behavior at

2 the time of his release on November 26, 2009. Upon his release, he began wandering the

3 streets, and his daughter, KELLIE BOCK, found him hiding behind a tree. There, he told

4 her that he was being followed and that people were after him.

5

54. Later that night, RODNEY BOCK abruptly left his house and went to the

6 local duck club, where he was a member. The next day, family members found RODNEY

7 BOCK behaving extremely erratically at the duck club. He was acting out based upon

8 apparent delusions and paranoia. He refused to return home or to eat. He spent the night

9 in a ditch, demanding that family members leave him alone and stating that he wanted to

10 be with God.

11

55. On or about November 27, 2009, family members attempted to have an

12 “intervention” with RODNEY BOCK, which included a family friend who was a mental

13 health professional. RODNEY BOCK told them that he was listening to God. Family

14 members contacted county officials, and RODNEY BOCK was admitted to Psychiatric

15 Emergency Services (PES) at SYMHS for psychiatric evaluation. Defendant ZIL and

16 other SYMHS staff completed an evaluation but did not admit him for psychiatric

17 hospitalization.

18

56. On or about November 30, 2009, family members again contacted the Sutter

19 County Sheriff’s Department based on RODNEY BOCK’s continued paranoia, delusions,

20 and psychotic behavior. RODNEY BOCK was taken to the SYMHS Psychiatric Health

21 Facility, where he was admitted on a 72-hour hold for evaluation and treatment pursuant to

22 Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5150.

23

57. SYMHS has sixteen (16) inpatient beds for mentally ill patients, with an

24 average census of approximately nine (9) to eleven (11) patients. SYMHS clinical,

25 administrative, and supervisory staff members have, or reasonably should have, knowledge

26 of all patients held at SYMHS, and their respective psychiatric conditions, at any given

27 time.

28

58. Following a psychiatric exam, RODNEY BOCK was documented as

15
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 17 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 presenting as psychotic, delusional, and grandiose. SYMHS staff documented that

2 RODNEY BOCK had a history of head trauma and a family history that included at least

3 one completed suicide, that his thought process was “quite scattered and tangential,” and

4 that his insight and judgment were markedly impaired. RODNEY BOCK expressed to

5 SYMHS staff his belief that President Obama was “sending people to kill him.”

6

59. Following the 72-hour hold, RODNEY BOCK was certified pursuant to Cal.

7 Welf. & Inst. Code § 5250 to remain at SYMHS for an additional fourteen (14) days of

8 involuntary hospitalization, based on a finding that he was a danger to himself or others or

9 was gravely disabled, as a result of a mental disorder or impairment requiring continued

10 intensive psychiatric treatment.

11

60. During his inpatient treatment at SYMHS, Defendants ZIL and BARNETT,

12 along with other SYMHS staff, evaluated and treated RODNEY BOCK, identifying

13 serious psychiatric diagnoses, including: Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Manic,

14 Severe with Psychotic Features. An SYMHS Inpatient Services Interdisciplinary

15 Treatment Team documented staff members’ recommendations that RODNEY BOCK be

16 provided a “supportive therapeutic milieu” to treat his psychiatric condition.

17

61. RODNEY BOCK was never provided a CT scan, MRI, or any other

18 diagnostic assessment or treatment related to the reported head trauma documented by

19 Defendant BARNETT and others.

20

62. At the time of his discharge on or about December 17, 2009, after a 17-day

21 hospitalization, RODNEY BOCK’s psychiatric condition and level of functioning

22 remained precarious. According to Defendant BARNETT’s evaluation and discharge

23 summary, RODNEY BOCK required further psychiatric treatment for his serious mental

24 illness, and Defendant BARNETT was to continue to provide such treatment.

25

January-February 2010 Mental Health Problems and Inpatient Treatment

26

63. On or about January 14, 2010, RODNEY BOCK again became delusional

27 and paranoid, leading to an incident at a local Applebee’s restaurant. He made several

28 erratic statements in the restaurant, and was subsequently arrested by police and taken by

16
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 18 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 Sutter County Sheriff’s Department to Sutter County Jail. Criminal charges were filed

2 against RODNEY BOCK based on this incident.

3

64. On or about January 15, 2010, RODNEY BOCK was held at Sutter County

4 Jail while continuing to manifest his unstable mental health condition. Custody staff

5 completed RODNEY BOCK’s Inmate Medical Screening Form. Jail staff failed to

6 properly assess or document RODNEY BOCK’s medication needs and his risk for self-

7 harm or suicide on the Inmate Medical Screening Form.

8

65. On or about January 15, 2010, RODNEY BOCK was referred to SYMHS for

9 a psychiatric evaluation. SYMHS staff completed a “Jail Outreach” evaluation

10 documenting RODNEY BOCK’s psychiatric history, which was maintained in RODNEY

11 BOCK’s custody file and documented his delusions and related serious psychiatric needs.

12

66. RODNEY BOCK was subsequently released from custody on bail.

13

67. On or about January 25, 2010, RODNEY BOCK’s close friends and family

14 again became alarmed by his delusional and paranoid behaviors. RODNEY BOCK’s

15 family again sought psychiatric treatment for him. On their request, Sutter County

16 Sheriff’s Department brought RODNEY BOCK to the SYMHS Psychiatric Health

17 Facility, where he was admitted on a 72-hour hold for evaluation and treatment pursuant to

18 Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5150.

19

68. Following his 72-hour hold, RODNEY BOCK was certified pursuant to Cal.

20 Welf. & Inst. Code § 5250 to remain at SYMHS Psychiatric Health Facility for an

21 additional fourteen (14) days of involuntary hospitalization, as a result of a mental disorder

22 or impairment requiring continued intensive psychiatric treatment.

23

69. During his inpatient treatment at SYMHS, Defendants BARNETT and ZIL,

24 along with other SYMHS staff, evaluated and treated RODNEY BOCK.

25

70. Defendant BARNETT and other SYMHS staff confirmed and documented

26 RODNEY BOCK’s serious psychiatric diagnoses, including: Bipolar I Disorder, Most

27 Recent Episode Manic, Severe with Psychotic Features. An SYMHS Inpatient Services

28 Interdisciplinary Treatment Team documented its recommendation that RODNEY BOCK

17
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 19 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 be provided a “safe, secure milieu and appropriate level of observation” to treat his

2 psychiatric condition. Defendant BARNETT and other SYMHS staff found him to be

3 “delusional, grandiose, hyperreligious (being ‘led by God’),” “quite psychotic/manic,” and

4 demonstrating “markedly impaired” insight and judgment. Defendant BARNETT and

5 other SYMHS staff identified and documented that RODNEY BOCK required fifteen-

6 minute safety checks and daily treatment, a clear recognition that RODNEY BOCK was at

7 risk of serious self-harm, including suicide.

8

71. Defendant BARNETT documented that RODNEY BOCK “need[ed] CT

9 Scan of head [prior to discharge] (will rec[ommend] that) considering [history] of head

10 injuries.” Neither Defendant BARNETT nor any other Defendant or county employee

11 ever ordered or provided this essential diagnostic testing for RODNEY BOCK.

12

72. On or about February 12, 2010, after a 17-day hospitalization, RODNEY

13 BOCK was discharged from SYMHS Psychiatric Health Facility. Although his

14 functioning had somewhat improved during the hospitalization, he continued to suffer

15 from serious psychiatric problems, including delusions and impaired insight and judgment.

16 Defendant BARNETT documented that RODNEY BOCK “still remain[ed] somewhat

17 delusional concerning being driven by God.”

18 Court-Ordered Evaluations to Determine RODNEY BOCK’s Mental Condition

19

73. In light of RODNEY BOCK’s serious and ongoing psychiatric problems, the

20 court presiding over the pending criminal complaint against RODNEY BOCK expressed

21 concern about RODNEY BOCK’s condition and mental competency to stand trial. On or

22 about January 27, 2010, the Honorable H. Ted Hanson of Sutter County Superior Court

23 ordered that RODNEY BOCK undergo a psychological evaluation to assist in a

24 determination of whether he was competent to stand trial and whether he required

25 psychiatric treatment, including inpatient hospitalization.

26

74. On February 22, 2010, Dr. Deborah Schmidt, Ph.D. conducted the court-

27 ordered psychological evaluation of RODNEY BOCK. Dr. Schmidt’s findings make clear

28 that RODNEY BOCK suffered serious psychiatric impairments including: an active

18
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 20 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 delusional, paranoid, and psychotic state; emotional instability; and high levels of agitation

2 and excitability – all indicators of a risk of self-harm. Dr. Schmidt concluded that

3 RODNEY BOCK’s highly unstable psychiatric condition made him incompetent to stand

4 trial. Dr. Schmidt also concluded that RODNEY BOCK required further psychiatric

5 assessment and more intensive treatment. This evaluation was placed in a COUNTY OF

6 SUTTER file on RODNEY BOCK that was readily available to both SYMHS and Jail

7 staff charged with treating and supervising RODNEY BOCK during his April 2010

8 detention.

9

75. On or about March 1, 2010, the Hon. Brian R. Aronson of Sutter County

10 Superior Court ordered a placement evaluation of RODNEY BOCK pursuant to Cal. Penal

11 Code § 1370.

12

76. Dr. Rick Bingham, the Community Program Director for the Sutter-Yuba

13 Conditional Release Program, completed the court-ordered placement evaluation. On or

14 about March 22, 2010, Dr. Bingham documented RODNEY BOCK’s history of

15 experiencing manic episodes of Bipolar Disorder, and his delusions of a special

16 relationship with Rush Limbaugh and of receiving messages from God directing his

17 actions. Dr. Bingham scheduled an appointment with RODNEY BOCK for March 30,

18 2010.

19

March-April 2010 Mental Health Crisis and Section 5150 Hospitalization

20

77. In late March 2010, RODNEY BOCK experienced extreme paranoia and

21 delusions. Based on delusional beliefs that God was directing him and that he needed to

22 meet with Rush Limbaugh, RODNEY BOCK abruptly drove to his nephew’s home in

23 Idaho. He expressed beliefs that the FBI was following him, that he was openly and

24 actively communicating with God and Rush Limbaugh, and that he was going to travel

25 somewhere with Rush Limbaugh by helicopter, among other delusions and hallucinations.

26

78. Because of his psychiatric deterioration and the resultant trip to Idaho,

27 RODNEY BOCK missed a March 29, 2010 court date. A warrant was issued based on this

28 missed court date.

19
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 21 of 82

[1126588-2]

1

79. On or about March 29, 2010, Dr. Bingham sent another letter to the court,

2 stating that he retracted his recommendations with respect to the appropriateness of

3 outpatient treatment for RODNEY BOCK, as contained in the March 22, 2010 placement

4 evaluation report. Dr. Bingham indicated that inpatient hospitalization was required. This

5 document was placed in a COUNTY OF SUTTER file on RODNEY BOCK that was

6 readily available to both SYMHS and Jail staff charged with treating and supervising

7 RODNEY BOCK during his April 2010 detention.

8

80. Recognizing his uncle’s severe decompensation and highly unstable

9 psychiatric state, RODNEY BOCK’s nephew brought RODNEY BOCK back to California

10 on or about April 1, 2010. RODNEY BOCK’s family returned him to SYMHS Psychiatric

11 Health Facility, where he was admitted for a 72-hour period of treatment and evaluation

12 pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5150.

13 Improper and Illegal Discharge from Section 5150 Involuntary Hospitalization and

Improper and Illegal Jail Placement with Direct Knowledge of and Deliberate

14

Indifference to RODNEY BOCK’s Serious Treatment Needs

15

81. Upon his admission to SYMHS Psychiatric Health Facility on April 1, 2010,

16 psychiatric staff identified RODNEY BOCK’s highly unstable psychiatric condition as

17 well as his need for a safe and structured therapeutic setting, including but not limited to

18 psychiatric hospitalization.

19

82. By this time, based on his recent psychotic episodes and repeated admissions

20 and hospitalizations at SYMHS, RODNEY BOCK’s mental health problems were widely

21 known by SYMHS clinical, administrative, and supervisory staff, including Defendants

22 BARNETT and ZIL, who each observed and evaluated him, and identified his psychotic

23 condition and symptoms indicating a high risk of serious self-harm and suicide.

24

83. On or about April 1, 2010, Defendant BARNETT evaluated RODNEY

25 BOCK and confirmed the diagnosis of Bipolar I Disorder, Manic with Severe Psychotic

26 Features, and recommended necessary interventions that included provision of a “safe and

27 structured milieu” and “redirection as required [and] observ[ation] for safety.” Defendant

28 BARNETT and the Interdisciplinary Treatment Team further documented RODNEY

20
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 22 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 BOCK’s need for a “state hospital placement.” Upon information and belief, these

2 treatment recommendations were made in recognition of RODNEY BOCK’s inability to

3 provide for his own basic needs and his risk for self-harm and suicide.

4

84. On April 2, 2010, Defendant BARNETT determined and documented that

5 RODNEY BOCK required at least an additional two (2) weeks of involuntary psychiatric

6 hospitalization pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5250 given his continued bipolar

7 symptoms, delusions, hallucinations, and inability to safely provide for his own basic

8 needs.

9

85. Yet that very same day, and barely 24 hours after his admission to SYMHS

10 hospital for a 72-hour period of treatment and evaluation pursuant to Section 5150,

11 Defendant BARNETT, knowing that RODNEY BOCK required further psychiatric

12 hospitalization and acting with deliberate indifference to that serious medical need, and

13 with knowledge that RODNEY BOCK’s symptoms put him at significant risk of self-harm

14 and suicide, ordered and approved the discharge of RODNEY BOCK for transfer to the

15 Sutter County Jail.

16

86. Defendant BARNETT’s discharge of RODNEY BOCK from the psychiatric

17 hospital for transfer to Sutter County Jail violated the statutory requirement, as set forth in

18 Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5152(a), that such a patient “receive whatever treatment and care

19 his … condition requires for the full period that he … is held” pursuant to § 5150, and that

20 he “be released before 72 hours have elapsed only if the psychiatrist directly responsible

21 for the person’s treatment believes, as a result of the psychiatrist’s personal observations,

22 that [he] no longer requires evaluation or treatment” (emphasis added). Defendant

23 BARNETT discharged RODNEY BOCK for transfer to Sutter County Jail without any

24 finding that he no longer required evaluation or treatment. To the contrary, Defendant

25 BARNETT knew that RODNEY BOCK remained gravely disabled and that psychiatric

26 hospitalization for a minimum of two (2) more weeks was necessary for the preservation of

27 life and/or the prevention of serious bodily harm.

28

87. At the time of RODNEY BOCK’s discharge from SYMHS on April 2, 2010,

21
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 23 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 Defendant BARNETT and other SYMHS staff provided a wholly inadequate treatment

2 plan, stating that the plan was for “law enforcement to come and serve the warrant and

3 arrest [him] and take him to jail for further Tx [treatment] there.” Defendant BARNETT

4 specifically documented observations indicating RODNEY BOCK’s heightened risk for

5 self-harm and suicide. He observed and documented that RODNEY BOCK was speaking

6 of “end times,” “remained quite manic and psychotic,” “was quite grandiose and

7 delusional with flight of ideas and quite focused on hyper-religious content,” and was

8 demonstrating “markedly impaired” insight and judgment. Defendant BARNETT knew or

9 should have known that such behaviors and symptoms, along with RODNEY BOCK’s

10 diagnosed condition, put him at significant risk of suicide. Defendant BARNETT

11 specifically documented that RODNEY BOCK’s psychiatric condition made him unable to

12 take care of his basic needs. Yet, Defendant BARNETT’s discharge plan provided no

13 adequate plan for treatment.

14

88. Defendant BARNETT knew or should have known that Sutter County Jail

15 could not, and would not, provide the necessary hospital-level treatment that RODNEY

16 BOCK required, and failed to take steps to prevent the constitutional violations and

17 foreseeable harm suffered by RODNEY BOCK. Defendant BARNETT further knew or

18 should have known that Sutter County Jail could not legally and safely house patients on

19 involuntary hospitalization status, as provided by Section 5150. Defendant BARNETT

20 knew or should have known these facts in part because SYMHS is responsible for the

21 provision of mental health services to inmates at Sutter County Jail.

22

89. Notwithstanding the multiple sources through which Defendant BARNETT

23 had notice of RODNEY BOCK’s serious treatment needs and significant risk of great

24 bodily harm, including suicide, Defendant BARNETT acted negligently, illegally, and

25 with deliberate indifference by discharging RODNEY BOCK from the treatment facility

26 barely 24 hours after his admission pursuant to Section 5150, despite clinical findings that

27 he remained gravely disabled, could not take care of his basic needs, and was psychotic.

28 Defendant BARNETT illegally discharged RODNEY BOCK from the hospital with the

22
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 24 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 Section 5150 involuntary hospitalization order still in place, and despite his finding that

2 RODNEY BOCK required at least two (2) additional weeks of psychiatric hospitalization.

3

90. Upon information and belief, Defendants PARKER, MCELFRESH, and

4 BIDWELL knew of and approved this premature and improper transfer of custody, with

5 knowledge of RODNEY BOCK’s continued Section 5150 status, as well as his urgent

6 need for a safe, structured, and intensive hospital treatment setting.

7

Improper and Illegal Placement in Sutter County Jail

8

91. RODNEY BOCK was then transferred by the Sutter County Sheriff’s

9 Department to Sutter County Jail for booking and placement in pre-trial detention.

10

92. At the Jail, Defendant FLIEHMAN improperly completed the booking

11 process for RODNEY BOCK on April 2, 2010. Upon information and belief, Defendant

12 FLIEHMAN was provided and reviewed the SYMHS discharge documentation and other

13 materials stating that RODNEY BOCK was on Section 5150 status due to grave disability,

14 was psychotic, grandiose and delusional, with markedly impaired insight and judgment,

15 and had a diagnosis of Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Manic, Severe with

16 Psychotic Features. Yet Defendant FLIEHMAN permitted RODNEY BOCK’s placement

17 at Sutter County Jail, knowing that the Jail could not legally house patients on involuntary

18 hospitalization status, as provided by Section 5150 and Jail directives of which he was or

19 should have been aware.

20

93. On information and belief, Defendant FLIEHMAN further acted negligently,

21 improperly, and with deliberate indifference in completing the custody assessment and

22 medical screening process for RODNEY BOCK. Defendant FLIEHMAN failed to record

23 any of the following critical mental health information on the screening documentation:

24 RODNEY BOCK’s psychotic condition, his grave disability preventing him from caring

25 for his own basic needs, his Section 5150 status, his medication and treatment needs, or his

26 risk of self-harm and suicide.

27

94. As a result of Defendant FLIEHMAN’s negligence and deliberate

28 indifference, RODNEY BOCK was wrongly admitted to the Jail and placed in a dangerous

23
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 25 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 general population single cell without appropriate observation for safety. Defendant

2 FLIEHMAN knew or should have known that RODNEY BOCK, as an actively psychotic

3 and delusional patient subject to Section 5150 involuntary psychiatric hospitalization,

4 could not be safely placed in such a setting, and that such a placement put RODNEY

5 BOCK at significant risk of serious self-harm and suicide.

6

95. Upon information and belief, Defendants PARKER, MCELFRESH, and

7 BIDWELL knew or should have known of this improper placement in the Jail, with

8 knowledge of RODNEY BOCK’s continued Section 5150 status and his urgent need for a

9 safe, structured hospital setting that the Jail could not and would not provide.

10

96. From April 2, 2010 until April 29, 2010, RODNEY BOCK was held in

11 custody at Sutter County Jail as a pretrial detained prisoner.

12 Defendant ZIL Had Notice of RODNEY BOCK’s Significant Risk of Serious Self-

Harm and Suicide, and Acted with Deliberate Indifference to His Serious Treatment

13

Needs by Failing to Provide Treatment

14

97. SYMHS is responsible for the provision of mental health evaluation,

15 treatment, and related services to prisoners at Sutter County Jail.

16

98. Defendant ZIL was assigned RODNEY BOCK’s treating physician during

17 his April 2010 detention at Sutter County Jail. Defendant ZIL was informed by phone and

18 in writing that RODNEY BOCK was displaying alarming signs and symptoms of serious

19 mental illness. Defendant ZIL was further informed of RODNEY BOCK’s diagnosis of

20 Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Manic, Severe with Psychotic Features, and his

21 need for psychiatric medications. Upon information and belief, Defendant ZIL was

22 informed, and thus knew or should have known, that RODNEY BOCK was on Section

23 5150 status based on grave disability and was psychotic, grandiose and delusional with

24 markedly impaired insight and judgment.

25

99. Defendant ZIL ordered psychiatric medication, including lithium, for

26 RODNEY BOCK. Lithium is a psychiatric drug used to treat bipolar disorder and to

27 reduce the risk of suicide and deliberate self-harm. Defendant ZIL thus knew or should

28 have known that RODNEY BOCK was at risk of suicide and required treatment, including

24
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 26 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 medication. Defendant ZIL was also informed and aware that RODNEY BOCK was not

2 compliant with medications, putting him at substantial risk of serious harm. Defendant

3 ZIL did not take steps to address this known serious risk: he did not order Direct

4 Observation Therapy (DOT) to ensure that necessary medication was administered; he did

5 not order additional evaluation or treatment in light of RODNEY BOCK’s medication non-

6 compliance and documented deterioration; and he did not order the required

7 hospitalization that was repeatedly identified as necessary given RODNEY BOCK’s

8 condition. It is well known that a basic, and essentially common sense, component of a

9 minimally adequate and constitutional mental health care delivery system is the adequate

10 administration of psychiatric medication with appropriate supervision and evaluation. See

11 Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282, 1298 & n.10 (E.D. Cal. 1995).

12

100. Upon information and belief, Defendant ZIL had one clinical contact with

13 RODNEY BOCK during the April 2010 detention, during which he was again informed

14 and documented that RODNEY BOCK had previously been in the SYMHS psychiatric

15 hospital, that he was bipolar and suffering from delusions and other symptoms of mental

16 illness, and that he did not want to take his psychiatric medications.

17

101. Defendant ZIL knew or should have known that Sutter County Jail could not,

18 and would not, provide the necessary hospital-level treatment that RODNEY BOCK

19 required, and failed to take steps to prevent the constitutional violations and foreseeable

20 harm suffered by RODNEY BOCK as a result of the lack of treatment provided at the Jail.

21 Upon information and belief, Defendant ZIL further knew or should have known that

22 Sutter County Jail could not legally house patients on involuntary hospitalization status, as

23 provided by Section 5150.

24

102. Upon information and belief, Defendant ZIL was informed and aware that

25 RODNEY BOCK was refusing his psychiatric medications and manifesting alarming

26 behaviors. Defendant ZIL knew or should have known that RODNEY BOCK’s sudden

27 and ongoing refusal to take prescribed psychiatric medications, including lithium,

28 increased the risk of serious self-harm and suicide several-fold.

25
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 27 of 82

[1126588-2]

1

103. Defendant ZIL knew or should have known that RODNEY BOCK’s bipolar

2 diagnoses and the pattern of his symptoms indicated a very high risk of self-harm and

3 suicide.

4

104. Defendant ZIL’s knowledge of RODNEY BOCK’s serious risk of suicide

5 based on his psychiatric condition are confirmed by his own writings on the subject. For

6 example, Defendant ZIL authored a Sutter County Jail Suicide Prevention Handbook, in

7 which he identified the well-known signs of suicide risk among jail inmates, including

8 “visual or auditory hallucinations,” “severe paranoia,” “delusions,” and “ideas of

9 grandeur,” all of which he was aware RODNEY BOCK was suffering. Defendant ZIL

10 further wrote that a psychotic condition like the one RODNEY BOCK had, with symptoms

11 including hallucinations and delusions like those suffered by RODNEY BOCK, presents

12 “a suicide risk because the inmate may not know what he or she is doing,” and that

13 immediate attention and treatment must be provided in such cases. Defendant ZIL thus

14 clearly knew or should have known that RODNEY BOCK’s serious mental illness, along

15 with his documented symptoms and refusal of psychiatric medications, placed him at grave

16 risk of self-harm and suicide. Defendant ZIL acted with deliberate indifference by not

17 providing appropriate treatment or ordering a psychiatric hospital placement given his

18 knowledge of RODNEY BOCK’s life-threatening circumstances.

19 Defendants PARKER, MCELFRESH, and BIDWELL Had Notice of RODNEY

BOCK’s Significant Risk of Serious Self-Harm and Suicide and His Court-Ordered 20 Psychiatric Hospital Placement, and Acted with Deliberate Indifference by Failing to

21

Effectuate the Court-Ordered Transfer or Otherwise Provide Treatment

22

105. On or about April 12, 2010, a superior court judge ordered a revised

23 placement recommendation for RODNEY BOCK. Dr. Bingham, pursuant to the court-

24 ordered evaluation, recommended to the court that RODNEY BOCK be placed at Napa

25 State Hospital for inpatient hospital treatment. This was placed in a COUNTY OF

26 SUTTER file on RODNEY BOCK that was readily available to both SYMHS and Jail

27 staff charged with treating and supervising RODNEY BOCK during his April 2010

28 detention.

26
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 28 of 82

[1126588-2]

1

106. On or about April 19, 2010, a superior court judge found that RODNEY

2 BOCK was incompetent to stand trial, ordered that criminal proceedings against RODNEY

3 BOCK remain suspended, and ordered that RODNEY BOCK be promptly transferred to

4 the custody of Napa State Hospital for psychiatric hospitalization. The court order further

5 directed that RODNEY BOCK be required to take all prescribed anti-psychotic

6 medications. This court order was placed in a COUNTY OF SUTTER file on RODNEY

7 BOCK that was readily available to both SYMHS and Jail staff charged with treating and

8 supervising RODNEY BOCK during his April 2010 detention.

9

107. Defendants PARKER, MCELFRESH, and BIDWELL knew or should have

10 known of this court-ordered hospital placement. Defendant PARKER, in his role as Sutter

11 County Sheriff, has the statutory duty to be informed of any Sutter County Jail inmate that

12 has been found mentally incompetent and has been ordered transferred to a psychiatric

13 hospital at Napa State Hospital. Pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1370, it is the sheriff’s duty

14 to be informed about any order on a prisoner’s lack of mental competency and state

15 hospital placement, and to complete the delivery of that prisoner to the state hospital.

16 Upon information and belief, Defendant MCELFRESH, as Jail Commander and officer in

17 charge of inmate admissions and discharges, was responsible for completing the prompt

18 transfer of mentally or medically ill inmates to appropriate out-of-facility placements,

19 including to mental hospital facilities pursuant to court order. Upon information and

20 belief, Defendant BIDWELL, as Jail Lieutenant and second in command of the

21 Corrections Section, was also responsible for completing the prompt transfer of mentally

22 or medically ill inmates to appropriate out-of-facility placements, including to mental

23 hospital facilities pursuant to court order. Upon information and belief, the court’s order

24 was transmitted to Sutter County Jail, and Defendants PARKER, MCELFRESH, and

25 BIDWELL were informed or should have been informed of such order.

26

108. Defendant MCELFRESH, upon information and belief, reviewed the

27 April 19, 2010 court order that RODNEY BOCK be promptly transferred to Napa State

28 Hospital for inpatient psychiatric hospitalization and be required to take all prescribed anti-

27
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 29 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 psychotic medications. The review and implementation of such court orders involving

2 inmates is a critical function of this position. Upon information and belief, Defendant

3 MCELFRESH failed to take necessary steps to effectuate this order.

4

109. Defendants PARKER, MCELFRESH and BIDWELL also knew or should

5 have known that Napa State Hospital was prepared to admit RODNEY BOCK. Napa State

6 Hospital had reviewed RODNEY BOCK’s profile and documentation, and had notified

7 Sutter County that RODNEY BOCK was approved for admission to the hospital. Upon

8 information and belief, RODNEY BOCK’s approval for Napa State Hospital admission

9 was transmitted to Sutter County Jail, and Defendants PARKER, MCELFRESH, and

10 BIDWELL were informed of such approval.

11

110. Defendants PARKER, MCELFRESH, and BIDWELL, and MCELFRESH

12 failed to complete the court-ordered transfer of RODNEY BOCK to Napa State Hospital

13 for necessary psychiatric hospitalization. Defendants PARKER, MCELFRESH,

14 BIDWELL, and MCELFRESH knew or should have known that the failure to provide

15 inpatient hospital care to RODNEY BOCK, as an actively psychotic and delusional patient

16 identified as requiring involuntary psychiatric hospitalization and for whom there was a

17 state hospital placement and involuntary medication order, placed RODNEY BOCK at

18 significant risk of serious harm, including self-harm and suicide.

19

111. Sutter County’s main jail, where RODNEY BOCK was held in custody, has

20 a prisoner capacity of approximately 200 prisoners. Defendants PARKER, MCELFRESH,

21 and BIDWELL receive and review all written incident reports relating to prisoners and the

22 operations of Sutter County Jail. Defendants PARKER, MCELFRESH, and BIDWELL

23 had, or reasonably should have had, direct knowledge of the Jail’s detention of RODNEY

24 BOCK, a diagnosed psychotic inmate admitted to the Jail while manifesting psychotic and

25 delusional symptoms and while subject to Section 5150 involuntary psychiatric

26 hospitalization.

27

28

28
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 30 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 Defendants LITTLE, CALAPINI, RAI, CRANE, MULLIN, and MCGINNIS Had

Notice of RODNEY BOCK’s Significant Risk of Serious Self-Harm and Suicide, and

2

Acted with Deliberate Indifference by Failing to Provide Clearly Necessary

3

Treatment

4

112. Defendants LITTLE, CALAPINI, RAI, CRANE, MULLIN, and MCGINNIS

5 each had interactions with and observations of RODNEY BOCK in the days prior to his

6 death. Each of these Defendants, as discussed below, observed and documented one or

7 more of the following indicators that RODNEY BOCK required prompt hospital-level

8 treatment and was at risk of serious personal harm in his general population, single-cell

9 setting: his actively psychotic, delusional condition; his Section involuntary psychiatric

10 hospitalization status; his refusals of critically necessary psychiatric medications; and his

11 self-injurious behaviors.

12

113. Defendant LITTLE, an officer assigned to RODNEY BOCK’s general

13 population housing pod, had significant interaction with RODNEY BOCK during his April

14 2010 detention. Upon information and belief, Defendant LITTLE knew or should have

15 known about RODNEY BOCK’s actively psychotic, delusional condition; his involuntary

16 psychiatric hospitalization status; and his significant risk of serious self-harm and suicide.

17

114. As reported by Defendant LITTLE, he observed RODNEY BOCK’s

18 psychotic patterns of behavior and acts of self-harm. Following RODNEY BOCK’s death,

19 Defendant LITTLE reported that he had observed RODNEY BOCK banging himself

20 against his cell door, yelling about or at people who did not exist, describing various

21 hallucinations, and refusing his psychiatric medication. Defendant LITTLE knew or

22 should have known that this combination and pattern of behaviors put RODNEY BOCK at

23 serious risk of further self-harm and suicide, and that RODNEY BOCK required

24 significant and immediate treatment.

25

115. Defendant CALAPINI, an officer assigned to RODNEY BOCK’s general

26 population housing pod, also had significant interaction with RODNEY BOCK during his

27 April 2010 detention. Upon information and belief, Defendant CALAPINI knew or should

28 have known about RODNEY BOCK’s actively psychotic, delusional condition, his Section

29
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 31 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 5150 involuntary psychiatric hospitalization status, and his significant risk of serious self-

2 harm, including suicide. Upon information and belief, Defendant CALAPINI observed

3 RODNEY BOCK engaging in acts of self-harm in his cell, having delusions and

4 hallucinations, and refusing his psychiatric medication. Defendant CALAPINI knew or

5 should have known that this combination and pattern of behaviors put RODNEY BOCK at

6 serious risk of further self-harm and suicide, and that RODNEY BOCK required

7 significant and immediate treatment.

8

116. Defendant RAI, an officer assigned to RODNEY BOCK’s general

9 population housing pod, had significant interaction with RODNEY BOCK during his April

10 2010 detention. Defendant RAI knew about RODNEY BOCK’s actively psychotic,

11 delusional condition and his significant risk of serious self-harm and suicide.

12

117. In the days and/or hours prior to RODNEY BOCK’s death, Defendant RAI

13 was contacted over the jail’s in-cell intercom system by inmates housed in close proximity

14 to RODNEY BOCK. Those inmates specifically told Defendant RAI that RODNEY

15 BOCK was behaving in an extremely erratic and psychotic way, and that he was “going

16 suicidal.” In response to this alarming information, Defendant RAI did not go to

17 physically check on RODNEY BOCK’s safety or condition, did not contact medical or

18 mental health staff about the inmates’ report that RODNEY BOCK was “going suicidal,”

19 and did not take any other necessary steps to ensure RODNEY BOCK’s safety. Defendant

20 RAI thus was informed and knew that RODNEY BOCK was at serious and imminent risk

21 of self-harm and suicide, and failed to take even the most basic steps necessary to provide

22 immediate and life-saving attention and treatment.

23

118. Upon information and belief, Defendant CRANE was responsible for

24 providing mental health and/or medical services at the Jail and had observed RODNEY

25 BOCK multiple times during his April 2010 detention. Defendant CRANE was informed

26 on or about April 24, 2010 that RODNEY BOCK’s condition had deteriorated to an

27 alarming level; that he was unstable and talking to himself and to inanimate objects; and

28 that he was refusing his medications.

30
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 32 of 82

[1126588-2]

1

119. Defendant CRANE observed and documented on or about April 24, 2010

2 that RODNEY BOCK had not taken psychiatric medications for several days, was

3 experiencing delusions and hallucinations, and was making alarming statements suggesting

4 suicidal thoughts such as “I am the voice . . . my father in heaven . . . we are going to do

5 the devils tomorrow.” Defendant CRANE knew or should have known that this

6 combination and pattern of behaviors put RODNEY BOCK at serious risk of further self-

7 harm and suicide, and that RODNEY BOCK required significant and immediate treatment.

8 Yet, acting with deliberate indifference to RODNEY BOCK’s treatment needs and risk of

9 serious harm, Defendant CRANE took no steps to provide treatment, ordering simply

10 “Follow up PRN [as needed].” Defendant CRANE never returned to re-evaluate

11 RODNEY BOCK, who continued to deteriorate until his death a few days later.

12

120. Defendant MULLIN, a Sutter County Jail nurse, observed RODNEY BOCK

13 multiple times, including during medication rounds. Defendant MULLIN observed and

14 recorded RODNEY BOCK’s repeated refusals of his psychiatric medications. Upon

15 information and belief, Defendant MULLIN observed RODNEY BOCK engaging in acts

16 of self-harm in his cell, having delusions and hallucinations, and refusing his psychiatric

17 medication. Yet, acting with deliberate indifference to RODNEY BOCK’s treatment

18 needs and risk of serious harm, Defendant MULLIN took no steps to provide treatment or

19 a necessary psychiatric placement.

20

121. Defendant MCGINNIS, a Sutter County Jail nurse, observed RODNEY

21 BOCK multiple times, including during medication rounds. Defendant MCGINNIS

22 observed and recorded RODNEY BOCK’s repeated refusals of his psychiatric

23 medications. Upon information and belief, Defendant MCGINNIS observed RODNEY

24 BOCK engaging in acts of self-harm in his cell, having delusions and hallucinations, and

25 refusing his psychiatric medication. Yet, acting with deliberate indifference to RODNEY

26 BOCK’s treatment needs and risk of serious harm, Defendant MCGINNIS took no steps to

27 provide treatment or a necessary psychiatric placement.

28

122. Defendants MULLIN, MCGINNIS, CRANE, LITTLE, CALAPINI, RAI,

31
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 33 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 and FLIEHMAN knew or should have known that the abrupt cessation and repeated

2 refusal of critically necessary psychiatric medication, including lithium, put RODNEY

3 BOCK at serious risk of self-harm and suicide, and that RODNEY BOCK required

4 significant and prompt intervention and treatment.

5

123. RODNEY BOCK, suffering from serious mental illness, expressed clear

6 cries for help and indications of his risk for self-harm and suicide. For example, he

7 documented on an Inmate Request Form provided to him by Jail staff that his housing

8 location was “Soon to be Hell!” Defendants LITTLE, CALAPINI, FLIEHMAN, RAI,

9 CRANE, MULLIN, and MCGINNIS knew or should have known of this and other

10 alarming indicators of RODNEY BOCK’s suicide risk and urgent need for psychiatric

11 treatment.

12

124. During the same period that Defendants were observing and interacting with

13 RODNEY BOCK while he was manifestly mentally ill during his April 2010 detention,

14 RODNEY BOCK’s family members, including KIMBERLY BOCK, KELLIE BOCK,

15 HILLARY BOCK, and LAURA LYNN BOCK visited him at Sutter County Jail. They

16 observed RODNEY BOCK’s substantial physical and psychiatric deterioration. They

17 observed that SYMHS and jail staff demonstrated little to no concern about RODNEY

18 BOCK’s worsening condition.

19

125. On April 26, 2010, family members visited RODNEY BOCK at Sutter

20 County Jail and observed him in a crisis-level condition. His physical appearance was

21 severely deteriorated: he was unshaven, had bags under his eyes, and was visibly

22 exhausted. He also demonstrated highly delusional and paranoid behaviors, making

23 statements relating to his need to die. RODNEY BOCK’s family members were deeply

24 distressed and felt helpless to get him the hospital treatment he needed.

25

126. Defendants ZIL, LITTLE, CALAPINI, FLIEHMAN, RAI, CRANE,

26 MULLIN, and MCGINNIS failed to do a complete and adequate suicide risk assessment

27 for RODNEY BOCK between the time of his transfer to Sutter County Jail on April 2,

28 2010, and his suicide on April 29, 2010, despite his readily observable psychiatric

32
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 34 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 symptoms, well-established indicators of suicide risk, and expressions of delusional and

2 suicidal thoughts. It is well known that a basic, and essentially common sense, component

3 of a minimally adequate and constitutional mental health care delivery system is an

4 adequate program to identify, treat, and supervise inmates at risk for suicide. See Coleman

5 v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282, 1298 & n.10 (E.D. Cal. 1995).

6

127. RODNEY BOCK was placed in a cell at Sutter County Jail that was

7 inappropriate for a person in his unstable condition and in need of inpatient psychiatric

8 care. He was placed in a general population cell that provided for no direct observation for

9 safety. He was further placed in a single cell, which is well known to be inappropriate for

10 inmates at elevated risk of self-harm and suicide.

11

128. Jail custody staff had live access to streaming footage of inmate activities

12 and movement, broadcast in a central location inside the Jail, at all times relevant times

13 mentioned herein. Defendants LITTLE, CALAPINI, FLIEHMAN, RAI, and other Jail

14 staff could have and should have, as pursuant to their job duties, observed RODNEY

15 BOCK’s erratic and alarming behavior through observation of this live video feed.

16

129. Defendants ZIL, LITTLE, CALAPINI, FLIEHMAN, RAI, CRANE,

17 MULLIN, and MCGINNIS, as a result of their own deliberate indifference, negligence,

18 and insufficient training and supervision, failed to follow the Sutter County Jail’s own

19 written policies and procedures, which provided that “Inmates with suspected mental

20 disorders, who are a potential danger to themselves or others or appear to be gravely

21 disabled shall be promptly evaluated and, if clinically indicated, transferred to an

22 appropriate psychiatric treatment facility. . . . Regardless of the time of presentation,

23 significantly disordered behavior should be evaluated promptly, within twenty-four hours

24 at the latest. The Jail Lieutenant or Jail Facility Manager will be contacted and will make

25 every effort to transfer mentally disordered inmates to appropriate treatment facilities. All

26 attempts and efforts to implement the transfer of such inmates, whether successful or not,

27 shall be documented.”

28

130. The failure of Jail custody staff Defendants FLIEHMAN, LITTLE,

33
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 35 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 CALAPINI, and RAI to contact medical services for emergency treatment was consistent

2 with a policy in effect at Sutter County Jail that custody staff did not have authority to

3 determine who would go to the hospital, despite the lack of 24-hour medical staff

4 availability at the jail. This policy is evidenced by an e-mail from Defendant PARKER to

5 a reporter explaining the circumstances of another death at the Sutter County Jail due to

6 failure to provide basic life-saving care, less than one year after RODNEY BOCK died.

7 Defendants PARKER, MCELFRESH, and BIDWELL created, were aware of, and

8 enforced this policy, knowing that it would endanger inmates like RODNEY BOCK who

9 require emergency psychiatric and medical attention.

10

131. Upon information and belief, Defendants BIDWELL and MCELFRESH

11 knew or should have known of RODNEY BOCK’s need for emergency treatment. Despite

12 their defined duties to transfer mentally disordered inmates to an appropriate treatment

13 facility, Defendants BIDWELL and MCELFRESH failed to take necessary steps to

14 complete such a transfer for RODNEY BOCK.

15 RODNEY BOCK’s Urgent Need for Psychiatric Treatment Was Obvious and Was Known, or Should Have Been Known, by Defendants
16

17

132. RODNEY BOCK’s appearance and alarming behaviors, as discussed supra,

18 made it obvious that his psychiatric condition was greatly decompensated and put him at

19 risk for serious personal harm, including self-harm and suicide.

20

133. Defendants ZIL, LITTLE, CALAPINI, FLIEHMAN, RAI, CRANE,

21 MULLIN, and MCGINNIS, who, upon information and belief, observed, interacted with,

22 and reviewed records of RODNEY BOCK, knew or should have known that RODNEY

23 BOCK’s psychiatric and medical situation during his detention at the Jail was dire, and

24 that he immediately required emergency treatment, including hospitalization.

25

134. Defendants ZIL, LITTLE, CALAPINI, FLIEHMAN, RAI, CRANE,

26 MULLIN, and MCGINNIS further knew or should have known that RODNEY BOCK was

27 at risk for serious personal harm, including deliberate self-harm and suicide, based on the

28 following:

34
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 36 of 82

[1126588-2]

1

a. Doctors had found that RODNEY BOCK was so “gravely disabled”

2 as to be unable to provide for his most basic personal needs and to require involuntary

3 emergency psychiatric hospitalization pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5150. Under

4 California law, such involuntary emergency hospitalization is appropriate where “action to

5 impose treatment over the person’s objection is immediately necessary for the preservation

6 of life or the prevention of serious bodily harm.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5008.

7 Defendants knew or should have known that RODNEY BOCK’s Section 5150 status as a

8 “gravely disabled” patient indicated the need for hospital treatment to preserve life and

9 prevent serious bodily harm.

10

b. It was and is well known that Sutter County Jail cannot legally or

11 appropriately house patients subject to Section 5150 hospitalization, and is not equipped to

12 provide the setting, supervision, and treatment to address the serious needs of such

13 patients.

14

c. It was and is well known in the medical and corrections community

15 that the type of bipolar disorder with which RODNEY BOCK was diagnosed immediately

16 prior to his April 2010 detention is associated with a high frequency of both completed

17 suicides and suicide attempts.

18

d. It was and is well known in the medical and corrections community

19 that lithium is regularly prescribed to reduce an identified risk of suicide. It is further well

20 known that the abrupt discontinuation of lithium medication increases the risk of suicide

21 several-fold, and warrants prompt medical and psychiatric intervention.

22

e. Defendants responsible for providing care and ensuring the safety of

23 Sutter County Jail prisoners were on notice of constitutional requirements for the provision

24 of mental health care to prisoners by virtue of the well-publicized decision in Coleman v.

25 Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1995), and subsequent orders in the Coleman

26 litigation, which describe in detail the essential components of constitutionally adequate

27 mental health care in California state prisons, including appropriate staffing, provision of

28 services, supervision, and suicide prevention procedures. Defendants, knowing that such

35
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 37 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 constitutional obligations also apply with respect to the treatment of county jail prisoners,

2 failed to take steps to provide constitutionally mandated mental health care and to prevent

3 the foreseeable harm suffered by RODNEY BOCK.

4 The Failure to Provide Necessary and Emergency Treatment, Hospitalization, and Life-Saving Care Resulted in RODNEY BOCK’s Tragic and Preventable Death
5

6

135. On information and belief, at approximately 7:00 pm on April 29, 2010,

7 Defendants LITTLE and CALAPINI conducted an hourly safety check and medication

8 round in RODNEY BOCK’s housing pod. Such hourly safety checks themselves

9 constituted inadequate supervision of RODNEY BOCK’s safety and well-being given his

10 psychotic condition and high risk of suicide.

11

136. RODNEY BOCK refused his medication at that time, stating that he did not

12 take medications anymore. Defendants LITTLE and CALAPINI took no action to address

13 this dangerous medication refusal, which carries a known increased risk of self-harm and

14 suicide. Defendants LITTLE and CALAPINI further failed to conduct the 8:00 pm hourly

15 safety check of RODNEY BOCK. Defendants LITTLE and CALAPINI knew or should

16 have known that the failure to observe RODNEY BOCK on a consistent basis significantly

17 jeopardized his safety and well-being.

18

137. During the approximately one hour and forty-five minutes about 7:00 pm, in

19 which he was not observed for safety in any way, RODNEY BOCK’s untreated mental

20 illness led him to engage in extensive and violent behaviors in his cell, causing massive

21 injuries including significant bleeding and hemorrhaging on his face, several parts of his

22 head, and throughout his body.

23

138. Using items in his cell that should not have been present in the cell of a

24 person manifesting RODNEY BOCK’s decompensated psychiatric condition, including

25 clothing that could be fashioned into a noose and affixed to dangerous attachment points

26 on the upper portion of the cell’s bed, RODNEY BOCK hanged himself.

27

139. Defendants LITTLE, CALAPINI, FLIEHMAN, and MCGINNIS, who, upon

28 information and belief, were present in the housing pod and responsible for inmates’ safety

36
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 38 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 at the time of the incident, failed to timely respond and provide life-saving intervention or

2 treatment. This failure was the result of their own deliberate indifference, negligence and

3 inadequate training and supervision to render psychiatric and medical treatment to inmates.

4

140. After nearly two hours without any supervision, RODNEY BOCK’s body

5 was found hanging from the upper bunk bed in his cell. Substantial amounts of RODNEY

6 BOCK’s blood covered the floor and walls of his cell.

7

141. RODNEY BOCK died in his cell on the evening of April 29, 2010, at the age

8 of 56.

9

Longstanding and Systemic Deficiencies in Sutter County Jail’s Provision of

Treatment to Inmates, Suicide Prevention Measures, and Other Relevant Matters 10

11

142. As identified by a Sutter County Grand Jury in its 2010-2011 Final Report,

12 Sutter County Jail has several known deficiencies in its system of providing mental health

13 and medical treatment to inmates. (The Sutter County Grand Jury Report is appended as

14 Attachment A.)

15

143. Identified deficiencies included inadequate medical staffing, lack of required

16 training on suicide prevention and other medical treatment, non-compliant medical policies

17 and procedures, and a medical program that was long out-of-compliance. The Grand Jury

18 noted that such deficiencies were “unacceptable,” and may have caused Sutter County to

19 be out of compliance with an existing court order in Haller v. Sutter County, Case No.

20 CIV-S-93-1256, which mandates certain jail conditions affecting the treatment of inmates.

21

144. The Grand Jury found that medical staffing at Sutter County Jail has been

22 inadequate, and that the hiring of additional staff is required.

23

145. The Grand Jury noted a report that training of staff nurses had not occurred

24 in more than five (5) years as of 2011, and that such training was necessary to maintain

25 proficiency in emergency response procedures. The Grand Jury found that Sutter County

26 Jail had failed to offer medical staff required training pursuant to court order and the jail’s

27 own Medical Policies and Procedures.

28

146. The Grand Jury found that Sutter County Jail’s health care policies and

37
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 39 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 procedures were significantly out of date, and that the situation had been allowed to

2 “deteriorate.”

3

147. The Grand Jury found that Sutter County Jail’s nursing program was

4 “completely out of compliance with annual nurse training updates and standard nursing

5 procedures,” and found “unacceptable that the program is out of compliance, lack of

6 training for the nursing staff, [and] not having the [policies and procedures] up-to-date,”

7 among other problems.

8

148. Sutter County Jail has recently experienced several likely preventable inmate

9 deaths in custody. In addition to RODNEY BOCK’s death, an inmate died in or about

10 January 2011 after languishing for several hours with an infection that led to fatal

11 pneumonia despite Jail staff observing visible signs of serious illness, including the inmate

12 coughing up substantial amounts of blood. Another inmate died in or about September

13 2011 after displaying signs of intoxication that, upon information and belief, went ignored

14 by Jail staff. Like RODNEY BOCK, these Jail inmates died as a result of deliberate

15 indifference to serious medical needs at Sutter County Jail. This pattern of tragic deaths

16 supports an inference that COUNTY OF SUTTER Defendants are promoting and

17 maintaining a culture of deliberate indifference to human life at the Jail.

18 RODNEY BOCK’s Family Have Suffered Serious and Permanent Injury as a Result of Defendants’ Deliberate Indifference and Other Misconduct
19

20

149. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendants,

21 Plaintiffs KIMBERLY BOCK, KELLIE BOCK, HILLARY BOCK, M.B., LAURA

22 LYNN BOCK, and ROBERT BOCK suffered the following injuries and damages:

23

a. Violation of their due process rights under the First and Fourteenth

24 Amendments to the United Stated Constitution;

25

b. Conscious, needless physical pain and suffering, emotional distress,

26 hardship, suffering, shock, worry, anxiety, sleeplessness, illness, trauma, suffering, and the

27 loss of the services, society, care, and protection of the decedent;

28

c. Loss of financial support and contributions, loss of the present value

38
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 40 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 of future services and contributions, and loss of economic security;

2

d. Emotional trauma and suffering, including fear, extreme emotional

3 distress, and horror;

4

e. Loss of the companionship of their father/son; and

5

f. Attorney’s fees and costs.

6

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

7

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

8

Cruel and Unusual Punishment in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment

to the Constitution of the United States – Deliberate Indifference to Serious

9

Medical Needs, Health and Safety

(Survival Action – 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

10

(Against Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER, COUNTY OF YUBA,

J. PAUL PARKER, LEWIS MCELFRESH, NORMAN BIDWELL, JOHN S. ZIL,

11 CHRISTOPHER BARNETT, BOBBY JOE LITTLE, DAVID CALAPINI, SHAUN

FLIEHMAN, BALJINDER RAI, RAINBOW CRANE, KATY MULLIN, DONICE

12

MCGINNIS, and DOES I through XL)

13

150. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 149, as

14 though fully set forth herein.

15

151. Defendants knew that there was a strong likelihood that RODNEY BOCK

16 was in danger of serious personal harm, including self-harm and suicide.

17

152. Defendants failed to provide necessary mental health evaluation and

18 treatment and adequate observation for safety for RODNEY BOCK while he was held at

19 SYMHS and Sutter County Jail, and failed to ensure necessary hospital-level treatment

20 despite his obvious psychotic state, Section 5150 status, high risk of harming himself, and

21 need for inpatient psychiatric hospital treatment, as determined by a psychiatric evaluation

22 and as ordered by a court.

23

153. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions as alleged herein, including but not

24 limited to their failure to provide RODNEY BOCK with medical or psychiatric care and/or

25 to take other measures to protect him from physical harm and to prevent his attempting

26 suicide after notice of his psychiatric condition, along with the acts and/or omissions of the

27 Defendants in failing to train, supervise and/or promulgate appropriate policies and

28 procedures at Sutter County Jail in order to prevent RODNEY BOCK’s and other inmate

39
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 41 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 suicides, constituted deliberate indifference to RODNEY BOCK’s serious medical needs,

2 health and safety.

3

154. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, RODNEY BOCK

4 experienced physical pain, severe emotional distress, and mental anguish over a period of

5 nearly one month, as well as loss of his life and other damages alleged herein.

6

155. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of the individually named

7 Defendants were malicious, reckless and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of

8 decedent’s rights thereby entitling Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary and punitive

9 damages according to proof, to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and to deter

10 such conduct in the future.

11

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

12

Municipal Liability for in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States

13

(Survival Action - 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

(Against Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER, COUNTY OF YUBA)

14

15

156. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 155, as

16 though fully set forth herein.

17

157. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants in being

18 deliberatively indifferent to RODNEY BOCK’s serious medical needs, health and safety

19 and violating RODNEY BOCK’s civil rights were the direct and proximate result of

20 customs, practices and policies of Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER and COUNTY OF

21 YUBA, by and through their agencies, employees and/or agents, as alleged herein.

22

158. Such policies, customs and/or practices include but are not limited to an

23 ongoing pattern of deliberate indifference, including the following: the failure to follow

24 legal requirements to house Section 5150 patients in designated hospital settings for the

25 full statutory period mandated by state law; the failure to conduct appropriate and

26 complete suicide assessments; the failure to create and implement appropriate mental

27 health treatment plans; the failure to follow clinical judgments and recommendations; the

28 failure to follow a court’s order to transfer a psychiatrically unstable individual to a

40
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 42 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 hospital; the failure to promptly evaluate and transfer to a psychiatric hospital inmates who

2 are gravely disabled and at risk of serious harm; the failure to take precautions to prevent

3 suicide among high risk and mentally ill inmates; the failure to implement appropriate

4 emergency treatment policies; and the failure to provide appropriate staffing and training at

5 Sutter County Jail to provide minimally adequate treatment for seriously ill inmates.

6

159. Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER and COUNTY OF YUBA tacitly

7 encouraged, ratified and/or approved of the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, and knew

8 that such conduct was unjustified and would result in violations of constitutional rights.

9

160. The customs, policies and/or practices of Defendants COUNTY OF

10 SUTTER and COUNTY OF YUBA were a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’

11 injuries and the death of the RODNEY BOCK in that Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER

12 and COUNTY OF YUBA failed to adequately train and supervise their employees and/or

13 agents to prevent the occurrence of the constitutional violations suffered by Plaintiffs and

14 RODNEY BOCK, and by other inmates at Sutter County Jail. Defendants COUNTY OF

15 SUTTER and COUNTY OF YUBA also failed to promulgate appropriate policies or

16 procedures or take other measures to prevent the constitutional violations suffered by

17 Plaintiffs and RODNEY BOCK, and by other inmates at Sutter County Jail.

18

161. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned customs, policies

19 and/or practices of Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER and COUNTY OF YUBA,

20 RODNEY BOCK and Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

21

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

22

Supervisory Liability

(Survival Action – 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

23

(Against Defendants J. PAUL PARKER, LEWIS MCELFRESH, NORMAN

BIDWELL, and DOES XXI through XL)

24

25

162. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 161, as

26 though fully set forth herein.

27

163. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants in being

28 deliberatively indifferent to RODNEY BOCK’s serious medical needs, health and safety

41
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 43 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 and violating decedent’s civil rights were the direct and proximate result of customs,

2 practices and policies of Defendants PARKER, MCELFRESH, BIDWELL, and DOES

3 XXI through XL as alleged herein.

4

164. Such policies, customs and/or practices include but are not limited to an

5 ongoing pattern of deliberate indifference, including the following: the failure to follow

6 legal requirements to house Section 5150 patients in designated hospital settings for the

7 full statutory period mandated by state law; the failure to conduct appropriate and

8 complete suicide assessments; the failure to create and implement appropriate mental

9 health treatment plans; the failure to follow clinical judgments and recommendations; the

10 failure to follow a court’s order to transfer a psychiatrically unstable individual to a

11 hospital; the failure to promptly evaluate and transfer to a psychiatric hospital inmates who

12 are gravely disabled and at risk of serious harm; the failure to take precautions to prevent

13 suicide among high risk and mentally ill inmates; the failure to implement appropriate

14 emergency treatment policies; and the failure to provide appropriate staffing and training at

15 Sutter County Jail to provide minimally adequate treatment for seriously ill inmates.

16

165. Defendants PARKER, MCELFRESH, BIDWELL, and DOES XXI through

17 XL tacitly encouraged, ratified and/or approved of the acts and/or omissions alleged

18 herein, and knew that such conduct was unjustified and would result in violations of

19 constitutional rights.

20

166. The customs, policies and/or practices of said Defendants were a direct and

21 proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries and the death of the RODNEY BOCK in that

22 Defendants failed to adequately train and supervise their employees and/or agents to

23 prevent the occurrence of the constitutional violations suffered by Plaintiffs and RODNEY

24 BOCK, and by other inmates at Sutter County Jail. Defendants also failed to promulgate

25 appropriate policies or procedures or take other measures to prevent the constitutional

26 violations suffered by Plaintiffs and RODNEY BOCK, and by other inmates at Sutter

27 County Jail.

28

167. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned customs, policies

42
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 44 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 and/or practices of Defendants, RODNEY BOCK and Plaintiffs suffered injuries and

2 damages as alleged herein.

3

168. The aforementioned acts of Defendants PARKER, MCELFRESH,

4 BIDWELL, and DOES XXI through XL were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive,

5 thereby justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages to punish the wrongful

6 conduct alleged herein and to deter such conduct in the future.

7

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

8

Violation of Substantive Due Process in Violation of First and Fourteenth

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States – Loss of Parent/Child

9

Relationship

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

10

(Against Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER, COUNTY OF YUBA,

J. PAUL PARKER, LEWIS MCELFRESH, NORMAN BIDWELL, JOHN S. ZIL,

11 CHRISTOPHER BARNETT, BOBBY JOE LITTLE, DAVID CALAPINI, SHAUN

FLIEHMAN, BALJINDER RAI, RAINBOW CRANE, KATY MULLIN, DONICE

12

MCGINNIS, and DOES I through XL)

13

169. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 168, as

14 though fully set forth herein.

15

170. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants in being

16 deliberatively indifferent to RODNEY BOCK’s serious medical needs, health and safety

17 and violating RODNEY BOCK’s civil rights and their failure to train, supervise and/or

18 take other measures at SYMHS and Sutter County Jail to prevent the conduct that caused

19 the untimely and wrongful death of RODNEY BOCK deprived Plaintiffs KIMBERLY

20 BOCK, KELLIE BOCK, HILLARY BOCK, M.B., LAURA LYNN BOCK, and ROBERT

21 BOCK of their liberty interest in the parent-child relationship in violation of their

22 substantive due process rights as defined by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

23 United States Constitution.

24

171. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and/or omissions

25 of Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

26

172. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of the individually named

27 Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive, thereby justifying an award of

28 exemplary and punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and to

43
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 45 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 deter such conduct in the future.

2

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

3

Professional Negligence/Medical Malpractice

(Survival Actions – Cal. State Law)

4

(Against Defendants JOHN S. ZIL, CHRISTOPHER BARNETT,

and DOES I through XL)

5

6

173. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 172, as

7 though fully set forth herein.

8

174. Defendant ZIL failed to comply with professional standards in the treatment

9 of RODNEY BOCK’s serious mental illness by failing to provide appropriate assessment

10 and evaluation, failing to prescribe appropriate psychiatric medications, failing to ensure

11 compliance with those medications, and failing to ensure appropriate treatment including

12 suicide precautions.

13

175. Defendant BARNETT failed to comply with professional standards in the

14 treatment of RODNEY BOCK’s serious mental illness by failing to provide appropriate

15 assessment and evaluation, failing to prescribe appropriate psychiatric medications, failing

16 to ensure compliance with those medications, and failing to ensure appropriate treatment

17 including suicide precautions. Defendant BARNETT also violated professional and legal

18 standards by discharging RODNEY BOCK from SYMHS to Sutter County Jail in early

19 April 2010 without finding that RODNEY BOCK no longer required evaluation or

20 treatment, and without ensuring that appropriate treatment would be provided to RODNEY

21 BOCK.

22

176. As a direct and proximate cause of this negligence and failure to meet the

23 professional standards of care, RODNEY BOCK and Plaintiffs suffered injuries and

24 damages as alleged herein.

25

177. The negligent conduct of Defendants was committed within the course and

26 scope of their employment.

27

28

44
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 46 of 82

[1126588-2]

1

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Negligence/Negligence Per Se

(Survival Action – Cal. State Law)

3

(Against Defendants CHRISTOPHER

BARNETT and SHAUN FLIEHMAN)

4

5

178. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 177, as

6 though fully set forth herein.

7

179. Defendant BARNETT violated Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5152, which

8 requires that individuals found to require Section 5150 involuntary psychiatric

9 hospitalization may not be released from the hospital before 72 hours has elapsed absent a

10 finding that the patient no longer requires evaluation or treatment. Defendant BARNETT

11 ordered and approved the discharge of RODNEY BOCK nearly 48 hours prior to the 72-

12 hour period had elapsed, despite an affirmative finding that he continued to require

13 treatment for at least two (2) additional weeks.

14

180. Defendant FLIEHMAN violated Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5150, which

15 requires that an officer taking an involuntarily hospitalized Section 5150 patient into

16 custody must place such an individual “facility designated by the county and approved by

17 the State Department of Mental Health as a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation.”

18 Defendant FLIEHMAN, who knew or should have known that Sutter County Jail is not

19 such a designated facility and cannot legally house Section 5150 patients, completed the

20 booking and admission of RODNEY BOCK. Defendant FLIEHMAN knew or should

21 have known that RODNEY BOCK remained on Section 5150 status at the time of such

22 placement in Sutter County Jail.

23

181. Defendants BARNETT and FLIEHMAN, acting negligently and improperly,

24 breached their respective duties, and as a direct and proximate result, RODNEY BOCK

25 and Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

26

182. RODNEY BOCK’s injuries are among the harms that the above-described

27 statutory provisions were designed to prevent, including among seriously mentally ill

28 individuals like RODNEY BOCK.

45
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 47 of 82

[1126588-2]

1

183. The negligent conduct of Defendants was committed within the course and

2 scope of their employment.

3

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4

Failure to Furnish/Summon Medical Care

(Survival Action – Cal. State Law)

5

(Against Defendants BOBBY JOE LITTLE, DAVID CALAPINI, SHAUN

FLIEHMAN, BALJINDER RAI, RAINBOW CRANE, KATY MULLIN, DONICE

6

MCGINNIS, and DOES I-XL)

7

184. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 183, as

8 though fully set forth herein.

9

185. Defendants owed RODNEY BOCK a duty of care to provide him immediate

10 medical and mental health care.

11

186. The conduct of Defendants alleged herein, including but not limited to the

12 facts that Defendants knew or had reason to know that RODNEY BOCK was in need of

13 immediate medical and mental health care and that Defendants failed to take reasonable

14 action to summon or provide that care, resulting in RODNEY BOCK’s death as alleged

15 herein, violated California state law, including Cal. Govt. Code §§ 844.6 and 845.6.

16

187. Defendants failed to timely respond to RODNEY BOCK’s psychotic

17 episode, in which he engaged in numerous acts of self-harm before hanging himself from

18 the upper bunk bed in his cell.

19

188. The alleged conduct of Defendants was committed within the course and

20 scope of their employment.

21

189. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, RODNEY BOCK

22 and Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages causing great pain and leading to his death, as

23 alleged herein.

24

190. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious, and

25 oppressive, thereby justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages to punish the

26 wrongful conduct alleged herein and to deter such conduct in the future. Plaintiffs seek

27 exemplary and punitive damages against non-medical Defendants only (i.e., Defendants

28 LITTLE, CALAPINI, RAI, and FLIEHMAN) as to this cause of action.

46
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 48 of 82

[1126588-2]

1

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Negligent Supervision, Training, Hiring and Retention

(Survival Action – Cal. State Law)

3

(Against Defendant COUNTY OF SUTTER)

4

191. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 190, as

5 though fully set forth herein.

6

192. Defendant COUNTY OF SUTTER has a duty to hire, supervise, train, and

7 retain employees and/or agents so that employees and/or agents refrain from the conduct

8 alleged herein.

9

193. Defendant COUNTY OF SUTTER breached this duty, causing the conduct

10 alleged herein. Such breach constituted negligent hiring, supervision, training and

11 retention under the laws of the State of California.

12

194. Defendant COUNTY OF SUTTER’s failure resulted in the violation of two

13 (2) statutes that establish a specific duty of care and/or basis for liability: first, the

14 violation of Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5152, which requires that individuals found to

15 require Section 5150 involuntary psychiatric hospitalization may not be released from the

16 hospital before 72 hours has elapsed absent a finding that the patient no longer requires

17 evaluation or treatment; and second, violation of Cal. Govt. Code § 845.6, which requires

18 the timely summoning of emergency care for Jail inmates.

19

195. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure, RODNEY BOCK

20 and Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

21

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

22

Wrongful Death, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60

(Against Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER, COUNTY OF YUBA,

23 J. PAUL PARKER, LEWIS MCELFRESH, NORMAN BIDWELL, JOHN S. ZIL,

CHRISTOPHER BARNETT, BOBBY JOE LITTLE, DAVID CALAPINI, SHAUN

24 FLIEHMAN, BALJINDER RAI, RAINBOW CRANE, KATY MULLIN, DONICE

MCGINNIS, and DOES I through XL)

25

26

196. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 195, as

27 though fully set forth herein.

28

197. RODNEY BOCK’s death was a direct and proximate result of the

47
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 49 of 82

[1126588-2]

1 aforementioned wrongful and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants.

2 Defendants’ acts and/or omissions thus were also a direct and proximate cause of

3 Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, as alleged herein.

4

198. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful and/or negligent

5 acts and/or omissions, Plaintiffs incurred expenses for funeral and burial expenses in an

6 amount to be proved.

7

199. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful and/or negligent

8 acts and/or omissions, Plaintiffs suffered the loss of the services, society, care and

9 protection of the decedent, as well as the loss of the present value of his future services to

10 his family. Plaintiffs are further entitled to recover prejudgment interest.

11

200. Plaintiff Estate of RODNEY BOCK is entitled to recover punitive damages

12 against individual Defendants who, with conscious disregard of RODNEY BOCK’s rights,

13 failed to provide RODNEY BOCK with mental health treatment services meeting the

14 professional standard of practice and failed to adhere to the legal mandates of prisoner

15 supervision.

16

201. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious, and

17 oppressive, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiffs of exemplary and punitive damages to

18 punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and to deter such conduct in the future.

19 Plaintiffs seek exemplary and punitive damages against non-medical Defendants only (i.e.,

20 Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER, COUNTY OF YUBA, PARKER, MCELFRESH,

21 BIDWELL, LITTLE, CALAPINI, RAI and FLIEHMAN) as to this cause of action.

22

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

23

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

24

1. For compensatory, general and special damages against each Defendant,

25 jointly and severally, in the amount proven at trial;

26

2. For damages related to loss of familial relations as to Plaintiffs KIMBERLY

27 BOCK, KELLIE BOCK, HILLARY BOCK, M.B., LAURA LYNN BOCK, and ROBERT

28 BOCK.

48
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 50 of 82

[1126588-2]

1

3. Funeral and burial expenses, and incidental expenses not yet fully

2 ascertained;

3

4. General damages, including damages for physical and emotional pain,

4 emotional distress, hardship, suffering, shock, worry, anxiety, sleeplessness, illness and

5 trauma and suffering, the loss of the services, society, care and protection of the decedent,

6 as well as the loss of financial support and contributions, loss of the present value of future

7 services and contributions, and loss of economic security;

8

5. Prejudgment interest;

9

6. For punitive and exemplary damages against each individually named

10 Defendant in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant(s) and deter others from

11 engaging in similar misconduct;

12

7. For costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42

13 U.S.C. § 1988, and as otherwise authorized by statute or law;

14

8. For restitution as the court deems just and proper;

15

9. For such other relief, including injunctive and/or declaratory relief, as the

16 Court may deem proper.

17

18 DATED: March 26, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

19

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

20

By: /s/ Aaron J. Fischer

21

Aaron J. Fischer

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

49
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 51 of 82

[1126588-2]

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial.

3

4 DATED: March 26, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

5

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

6

By: /s/ Aaron J. Fischer

7

Aaron J. Fischer

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

50
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 52 of 82
Attachment A

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 53 of 82

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 54 of 82

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 55 of 82

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 56 of 82
Honorable Judge Chris Chandler Sutter County Superior Court 446 2nd Street Yuba City, CA 95991
Dear: Judge Chandler
In accordance with the California Penal Code Section 933, the 2010-2011 Sutter County Grand Jury has completed its duties with the release of the Final Report to the Court and to the citizens of Sutter County. We were privileged to be selected a year ago to serve on the Sutter County Grand Jury as “a voice of the people and conscience of the community.” We took our work seriously and did our best to approach our reviews and investigations objectively and thoroughly.
It has been a year of learning and hard work in gaining new insights; some were frustrations, and some were fun. We have all had personal growth in this Grand Jury experience. As is with any new Grand Jury, eighteen independent individuals with distinctive talents and skills successfully formed cohesive efforts to make their contribution to the citizens of this county. Members of this Jury have dedicated countless hours of work investigating, compiling, debating, and writing these reports. Each member of this Grand Jury contributed greatly to this report. I am proud of my fellow jurors and all they have accomplished.
This year was Judge Brian Aronson second year as the supervising judge for the Grand Jury. We would like to thank Judge Aronson, together we have learned a lot. To complete our work, we had the assistance of the county's court staff, particularly Christine Dagnino and Jackie Laswell. Each staff member we encountered was friendly and helpful. Our thanks to District Attorney Carl Adams and his staff who assisted us along the way taking our phone calls and providing us with the information we needed to perform our duties as members of the Grand Jury. We commend District Attorney Carl Adams dedication of time as the legal advisor for the Grand Jury for the past twenty-eight years. The Court Security Staff was very helpful as we navigated unfamiliar territory around the courthouse. Many individuals from the various agencies we visited were also helpful in countless ways.
In Conclusion I would like to thank this year’s Grand Jurors for their conscientious effort and commitment. I would also like to thank Tammie Putman for her dedication and service as the Pro-tem and Secretary of the 2010-2011 Sutter County Grand Jury. Her dedication has made our job much easier. In closing, I would also like to express my
2

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 57 of 82

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 58 of 82

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 59 of 82

Table of Contents

Page

AD-HOC Committee

7

Sutter County Jail Nurses Program Citizens Complaint

8

Attachment A

12

Audit and Finance Committee

13

Misallocation of Bradley-Burns and Transportation Tax Fund Deposits 14

Attachment A

19

Attachment B

20

Attachment C

21

County Government and Administration Committee

22

County Government Release of Public Information

23

Criminal Justice Committee

26

Leo Chesney Community Correctional Facility

27

Sutter County Jail

29

Sutter County Department of Child Support Services

31

Yuba City Police Department

34

Yuba-Sutter Juvenile Hall Camp Singer Youth Guidance Center

35

Education Committee

38

Sutter County Superintendent of Schools

39

Sutter Union High School

43

Fire and Emergency Committee

45

Office of Emergency Management

46

Twin Cities Rod and Gun Club

48

5

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 60 of 82

Health and Mental Health Services Committee

50

Sutter-Yuba Mental Health Services

51

Planning and Environment Committee

54

Sutter County Environmental Health Division

55

Sutter County Planning Services

57

Public Buildings and Properties Committee

58

Sutter County Animal Control Shelter

59

Social Services Committee

78

Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Program

79

Sutter County Department of Human Services

81

Continuity Committee

84

Department of Child Support Services

85

Leo Chesney Community Correctional Facility

86

Sutter County Jail

87

Yuba City Police Department

88

Yuba-Sutter Juvenile Hall

89

6

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 61 of 82
AD-HOC Committee
7

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 62 of 82
Sutter County Jail Nurses Program Citizens Complaint
Introduction
The 2010-2011 Sutter County Grand Jury (SCGJ) received a citizen's complaint on the Sutter County Jail Nurses Program. The complaint alleged illegal practices, lack of training, out of compliant policies/procedures and poor inmate medical care.
The Grand Jury established an Adhoc Committee to undertake an investigation to determine these allegations on the complaint. Interviews were held with supervisors, managers, and staff of the Sutter County Jail. The Adhoc Committee completed an investigation of this complaint and made a number of recommendations resulting from that investigation.
Discussion
The Sutter County Jail Nurses program is to ensure provision of emergency and basic health care services to individuals who are in custody. Nursing Staff provides health care to the incarcerated from booking until the time of release. Along with the Physician and Nurse Practitioner, there is a Jail Nurse Manager, a Supervising Registered Nurse (SRN) , three Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVN)'s and 7-8 contract LVN's. Since November 2010, the county has an open position for a second SRN.
The Grand Jury felt the allegations in the complaint were serious and needed to be investigated.
The complaint alleges the following:
Inadequate R.N. Coverage
According to the complaint, per Legal Decree #CIV-S-93-1256 DFL JFM (P) of Dempsey W. Haller, et al. vs. The County of Sutter, et al. (see attachment, A) states in part:
E. 2. Staffing: "Jail medical staffing is the responsibility of the County's Human Services Department and shall consist of at least one registered nurse on site during either the day shift or the evening shift seven days per week, and either one registered nurse or one LVN on site during the other day shift or evening shift as appropriate, seven days per week ... "
Prior to the resignation of a SRN, there was one SRN and LVN on the day shift or one SRN and LVN on the night shift. There was an incident when the SRN on the night shift became ill while on duty. The SRN called in a LVN for backup. The SRN was reprimanded by the Jail Nurse Manager in an email that there should have been a Registered Nurse on duty. The SRN was referred to legal decree #CIV-S-93-1256 DFL
8

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 63 of 82
JFM (P) against Sutter County, which states the requirement. The SRN was not told of this legal decree prior to this incident. According to the staff, there had been 20 days so far that year that this had occurred. During the investigation, it was noted that this was a common occurrence since there were only two SRNs.
Lack of Training
According to the complaint training of staff nurses has not occurred in more than five (5) years. Annual onsite training is necessary to maintain proficiency in emergency response procedures.
Before the SRN resigned, the SRN requested onsite training. The SRN's request was refused by the Jail Nurse Manager. The SRN put together training on Emergency Response in the jail. The SRN asked for a review ofthe materials and the Jail Nurse Manager refused to even look at the class outline. The SRN held the class with a few nurses and correctional staff in attendance.
Out of Compliant Policies and Procedures
The complaint alleged the Jail Nurses Program is out of compliance with California State correctional code - Title 15 sec 1206 Policy and Procedures (P&P) are to be reviewed annually. Standardized Nursing Procedures (SNP) have not been reviewed or updated since 1995. The SNP has been changed with pencil marks.
The nursing staff has inquired as to why these P&P's and the SNP's are outdated. The Jail Nursing Manager's answer is lack oftime prevents him from completing the task.
Finding
Inadequate R.N. Coverage
The Nurse staffing at the Jail has been directed by a court order in Dempsey W. Haller vs. Sutter County, et al. No. CIV-S-93-1256 DFL JFM (P). Failure to comply with this order Sutter County can be found out-of-compliance and could be liable for additional action by the Court.
Recommendation
Every effort should be made to hire an additional SRN and ensure one is available for either the AM shift or the PM shift. The Nursing Program Manager needs to take a more active role in managing the Jail Nursing Program. Once the SRN position is filled, the Nursing Program Manager, who is also an RN, must be utilized to ensure the Jail Nursing Program is in compliance with the court order.
9

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 64 of 82
The Assistant Director of Health and Human Services should provide oversight to insure the Jail Nursing Program is in full compliance with court order Legal decree #CIV-S-931256 DLF JFM (P).
Finding
Lack of Training
Legal decree #CIV-S-93-1256 DLF JFM (P) E19. Training: "Jail custody staff shall receive periodic update training in First Aid, CPR, intake screening, blood borne pathogens and suicide prevention..."
Sutter County Jail Medical Policies and Procedures #3 Section 6. "Oversees training of nurses and/or officers in areas where improvement is needed, as identified by QA audits, including regular and continued joint staff development activities. These will be documented as to date given, content, attendees and comments."
Training is necessary to maintain proficiency in on-site activities. The Nursing Program Manager has failed to offer his nursing staff any of the required training. When one of his SRN's put together an emergency response training class he refused to review the course outline before the class was held.
Recommendation
The Grand Jury recommends the Nursing Program Manager along with the Medical Officer, develop a training program to ensure adequate on-site training be made available to the nursing staff on a regular basis. The Assistant Director of Health and Human Services should provide oversight to ensure this training program is implemented.
Finding
Out of Compliance Policies and Procedures
Title 15 Regulations 1206. Health Care Procedure Manual "The health authority shall in cooperation with the facility administrator, set forth in writing, policies and procedures in conformance with applicable State and Federal law, which are reviewed and updated at least annually..."
During the investigation, it was stated unanimously that the P&P's were significantly outof-date. The County Medical Officer is responsible for making sure the P&P's are current by signing them annually. The Jail Nurse Program Manager has overall responsibility to see that the Nursing Program policies and procedures are operational and functioning in the scope as laid out in the Standard Nursing Procedures. The Jail Nurse Program Manager has not done this. When the Jail Nurse Program Manager was hired, the P&P's were not up to date. By not correcting these problems, his inaction has allowed this
10

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 65 of 82
situation to deteriorate further. The Jail Nurse Program Manager indicated it would take over a year to complete. This should be made a priority. Recommendation The County Medical Officer and the Jail Nurse Program Manager with oversight from the Assistant Director of Health and Human Services should ensure the Jail Nursing Program P&P's are reviewed, rewritten, and made current so they can be used and referred to by the jail staff. The Standard Nursing Procedures has been changed with pencil marks and needs to be corrected. The Grand Jury recommends that these documents be completed by December 31, 2011. The Jail Nursing Program would also benefit from more active oversight by the Assistant Director of Health and Human Services to see that it is accomplished by the above date. Finding During this investigation the Grand Jury finds the Jail Nursing Program is completely out of compliance with annual nurse training updates and standard nursing procedures. This exposes Sutter County to numerous potential issues in the future. Recommendation The Grand Jury recommends that the Assistant Director of Health and Human Services actively take measures to ensure that this program is in full compliance with the law. It is unacceptable that the program is out of compliance, lack of training for the nursing staff, not having the P & P's up-to-date, and the pencil corrections in the SNP. The Grand Jury recommends that the Jail Nursing Program be in full compliance by December 31, 2011. Respondents Director of Health and Human Services, Tom Sherry Assistant Director of Health and Human Services, Amerjit Bhattal County Medical Officer, Dr. Cummings Jail Nurse Program Manager, Brent Garbett
11

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 66 of 82 Attachment A
12

- Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 67 of 82

\

'_.
I

I

L_

,~.-
"--

-....I.

DARRELL W. LARSEN - Bar No. 044272 \
SUTTER COUNTY COUNSEL JAMES SCANLON - Bar No. 078914 DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL 1160 Civic Center Blvd. Yuba City, CA 95993 Telephone: (916) 741-7110
JOHN HAGAR - Bar No. 81039 LAW OFFICE OF JOHN HAGAR P. O. Box 86935 Los Angeles, CA 90086-0935
Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER and SHERIFF ARTHUR R. BRANDWOOD
L.~=}.:.:D

SEP.141994
C' ~:;;;, ii. S. DISTRICl COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CAliFORNIA BY ------::-"r~l':":";l'T:::O:y(:~_LE~R~K

" 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

c

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMPSEY W. HALLER, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)
THE COUNTY OF SUTTER, et a1. )

)

----------------------------)

No. CIV-S-93-1256 DFL JFM (P)
AMENDED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 68 of 82
The parties hereby stipulate to settlement of the issues remaining in this case as follows:
A. Clothing Exchange: Defendants will provide Jail inmates with clothing upon intake, and periodic clothing exchanges pursuant to Title 15, section 1260, 1261, 1262, 1263, and 1264. All references to Title 15 in this agreement are to Title 15 as amended in 1994.
B. Recreation: Defendants will provide Jail inmates with outdoor recreation pursuant to Title 15, section 1065. Defendants will make best efforts to provide Main Jail inmates wi th outdoor recreation five times per week. In addition, defendants will provide, subject to security considerations, the following recreation equipment in the Jail's outdoor recreation yards [both male and female]: portable basketball hoops, volleyball nets and balls, handballs, and one Santa Clara County Hermo II exercise machine,'
C. Food: Defendants will complete the Jail's kitchen remodel project by September 1, 1994, Thereafter, defendants will comply with Title 15 standards, specifically sections 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248, and 1249 concerning food preparation in the Jail.
D. Law Library: Defendants will participate in an experiment to provide CD-Rom law library materials to Jail inmates ef fecti ve september 1, 1994, There will be a CD-Rom library for inmates in the Jail.
lA Hermo II is also provided to inmates housed in the Jail Dormitory housing unit.
2

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 69 of 82
1. All inmates will be provided with access to the CD-Rom library and hardbound law library regardless of sentenced or presentenced status, regardless of whether the inmate is represented by counsel.
2. CD-Rom library and hardbound law library access will be subject to reasonable security, staffing and time restrictions .
. \
Inmates facing court deadline and inmates proceeding "in pro per" in local courts will be afforded priority access.
3. Inmates who request access to the CD-Rom o~ hardbound law library will be provided direct access without staff present and will be allowed to browse among the available CD disks and law books and to work on their legal cases wi thin the law library.
4. The Jail CD-Rom West Publishing inventory is attached as Exhibit A. The Jail hardbound book law library is attached as Exhibit B.
5. Inmates working with the CD-Rom legal system will have access to a computer, CD drive, dot matrix printer and written instructions explaining how to access CD-Rom materials will be provided by plaintiffs' counsel.
6. The above-referenced experiment will continue for at least a period of twelve [12] months. Counsel for the parties will communicate at least every six months concerning the status of this experiment. At the conclusion of this period the parties shall meet and confer in good faith concerning the long term use of CD-Rom and hardbound law books.
3

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 70 of 82
E. Medical Care: Defendants will modify their delivery of medical services system to provide medical, mental health, and dental care to the plaintiff class as set forth below, the implementation of which service systems will be commenced immediately and will be completed on or about January 1, 1995.
1. Intake screening: Jail medical intake screening shall .\
be performed by a Sheriff's custody staff trained in screening procedures by County medical and mental health personnel. The intake screening form shall meet the criteria established by Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations and the California Medical Association. Jail medical staff shall review all intake screening forms as soon as possible, in most cases the same day as booking, but in no event later than the next shift when nursing staff is available.
2. Staffing: Jail medical staffing is the responsibility of the County's Human Services Department and shall consist of at least one registered nurse on site during either the day shift or the evening shift seven days per week, and either one registered nurse or one LVN on site during the other day shift or evening shift as appropriate, seven days per week. Supplementing this nursing coverage shall be on-site visits by a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant two days per week for a total of approximately four hours per week, and on-site visits by a physician twice per week for approximately five hours. Excluding weekends and county holidays, there will be an on-site visit by either a nurse practitioner, physician's assistant, or a phys ician not less frequently than every other day. Further
4

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 71 of 82

supplementing this coverage shall be on-site visits by a County

mental health staff crisis counselor for approximately 18 hours

per week, for no less than 3 separate visits each week. On-site

visits for physicians and mental health workers will take place,

whenever possible, on established days and hours. Clerical

support will be provided the Jail nurses as appropriate. J 3. Sick Call: There shall be a screening process

concerning inmate medical problems and complaints conducted by

the Jail nursing staff or a nurse practitioner or a Physician's

assistant. To access sick call, inmates shall utilize a Jail

Sick Call Request form. The triage for sick call slips shall

take place daily, formal sick call shall be available five days

per week.

4. Pill Call: Medications shall be distributed to Jail

inmates by County medical and/or Jail staff based upon protocols

established and approved by the County Department of Human

Services. All medications shall be distributed the appropriate

number of times per day deemed medically necessary by County

medical/mental health staff.

5. Inmate Medical Records:

Inmate medical/mental

heal th/dental records shall be maintained in a confidential

manner and in a secure setting. The Jail's medical staff shall

maintain records on site at the Jail which document inmate

medical problems and which include the information and documents

deemed necessary by established protocols based upon Title 15

Minimum Jail Standards.

1/11/

5

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 72 of 82

6. Access to Specialized Clinics: Inmates shall have

access to specialized clinics and care as deemed appropriate by

County medical, dental, and mental health providers.

7. Inmates With Acute Illnesses: Inmates with acute

illnesses shall be transferred to alternative sites for care as

deemed appropriate by County medic.. al and/or mental health staff . 8. Detoxification: The Jail shall maintain written

detoxification procedures which are utilized by both Sheriff's

and County medical staff. These procedures shall comply with the

standards set forth in the Title 15 "Minimum Standards" for Local

Detention Facilities in the California Code of Regulations.

9 . Communicable Diseases: The Jail shall maintain its

plan to detect, control, and treat inmates with priority

communicable diseases. The program to detect, control and treat

inmates with communicable diseases will describe how the

identification, treatment, control, and follow-up management of

inmates with communicable diseases will occur.

Priority

communicable diseases will include TB, HIV/AIDs, STD's, Hepatitis

A and B, Rubella, Measles and other diseases identified by Jail

staff and the Sutter County Public Health Officer.

10. Standardized Practices: The Jail's medical personnel

shall follow established written treatment protocols prepared by

the County's Department of Human Services. These treatment

protocols, and the medical policies and procedures utilized by

Jail medical staff shall be completely revised and approved by

all of the involved County agencies. Jail policies, procedures,
Q
and treatment protocols shall follow the format established by

the California Medical Association.

6

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 73 of 82

11. Suicide Prevention: The Jail shall maintain a suicide

prevention program which includes instruction by County mental

health staff [both classroom and video training] for Sheriff's

personnel working with the Jail.

12. Dental Care: Inmates requiring dental care shall be

referred to a private provider who shall provide the appropriate .1
care necessary to alleviate pain, prevent infections, and treat

emergency dental needs. Dental care shall be timely depending

upon the pain and seriousness of the dental problem. nental care

shall not be limited to extractions, however, the dental care

provided to Jail inmates is not intended to deal with years of

personal neglect.

13. Management of Pharmaceuticals:

Pharmaceutical

practices will comply with section 1216 of the Title 15 Minimum

Standards for Local Detention Facilities.

14. Sick Call Forms: The Jail's sick call form, including

the form necessary to request mental health care, shall be

printed in English, Spanish, and Punjabi. Inmates who request

that a staff member act as a translator during the sick call or

intake screening process shall be provided with language

assistance as deemed appropriate by Jail staff. Access to forms

shall include access to information concerning how to obtain

medical, mental health, and dental care within the Jail.

15. Quality Assurance: The responsible County physician

for the Jail under Title 15, section 1202 shall establish a

mechanism to assure that the quality and adequacy of medical,

dental, and mental health care is annually assessed. The plan

7

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 74 of 82
shall include a means for the correction of identified deficiencies of the medical/dental/mental health and pharmaceutical services provided and shall include the statistical gathering set forth in Title 15. In addition, and as part of this plan, monthly meetings shall be held between the
Jail's custody and medical/mental• health staff .
16. Informed Consent: The Jail has established procedures which conform to Title 15, section 1214 of the California Code of Regulations.
17. Food Handlers: The responsible physician shall develop procedures for medical screening of food handlers prior to working in the facility kitchen. Additionally, there shall be written procedures for education and ongoing monitoring and cleanliness of food service workers in accordance with section 27605 of the Health and Safety Code, California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law.
18. Jail Medical Office: The Jail's medical office shall be renovated by March 1, 1995.
19. Training: Jail custody staff shall receive periodic update training in First Aid, CPR, intake screening, blood borne pathogens,and suicide prevention.
20. OSHA: The Jail will implement a program to address the OSHA blood borne pathogen requirements.
21. Women's Rights: The Jail will post as necessary the pregnancy related rights of female inmates as set forth by the California Penal Code.
8

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 75 of 82

22. HIV Testing: HIV testing will be provided in the Jail

upon request. Pre and post test counselling will be provided.

F. Ei ther party may seek to change the terms of this

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT pursuant to the standards set forth in Rufo

v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S.

, 112 S.Ct. 748

(1992).

G. In the event that an emergency threatens the Sheriff's

ability to comply with these orders, counsel for defendants will

notify counsel for plaintiffs no later than the neXt business

day.

H. Defendants shall pay to plaintiffs' counsel attorney

fees in the amount of $17,500 at the time of the filing of the

Final Judgment.

I. The parties have previously stipulated to a permanent

injunction filed on September 15, 1993 relating to any and all

population issues, a copy of which is attached hereto and

incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit C. This SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT is intended to resolve all matters not covered by the

permanent injunction referred to above.

Upon the execution of this SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, the

parties request a dismissal of all matters not covered by the

permanent injunction referred to above.

J. The parties stipulate and agree that the Magistrate

Judge and District Court Judge assigned this case will issue any

and all orders necessary for the dismissal of this action,

including but not by way of limitation any orders deemed

9

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 76 of 82

necessary regarding posting of this agreement and any Fairness

Hearing deemed necessary.

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

DATED: August ,~ , 1994

DARRELL W. LARSEN SUTTER CqVNTY COUNSEL

~, DATED: August

1994

COUNSEL Defendants
C?~(jIG~ PAUL COMISKEY Attorney for Plaintiffs

10

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 77 of 82
EXHIBIT A -- CD-ROM LIBRARY
1. The system will provide access to the following legal authorities:
(a) Reported cases of the United States Supreme Court (b) Federal 2d and Federal 3d Reporters (c) All available California reported cases (d) Annotated California Codes 2. The computer hardware system which will include a single work station terminal shall be selected by the Sutter County Sheriff with the concurrence with plaintiffs' counsel.

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 78 of 82

EXHIBIT B -- LAW LIBRARY - BOOKS

In addition to computerized legal research, the law library shall

consist of at a minimum the following bound authorities or their

substantial equivalents:

.

1. West California Rules of Court, Sta.t' e - latest edition 2. West California Rules of Court, Federal - latest edition

3. West Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Proceduri and Evidence - latest edition

4. Black's Law Dictionary - latest edition

5. Deerings California Penal Code - latest edition

6. Deerings California Civil Practice Code - latest edition

7. Federal Habeas Corpus - 2nd edition (Michie Company)

8. California Criminal Law

Book No. a. b. c. d.

1
Introduction to Crimes Elements of Crime Defenses Crimes Against the Person

Book No. a. b. c. d.

2 Crimes Crimes Crimes Crimes

Against Property Against Decency and Morals Against Public Peace and Morals Against Governmental Authority

Book No. 3 a. Punishment for Crimes

1

.- Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 79 of 82

..;.-'"! .... .;

1 DARRELL W. LARSEN [state Bar 144272] SUTTER COUNTY COUNSEL
2 JAMES SCANLON [State Bar #78914] DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL
3 1160 Civic Center Blvd. Yuba City: CA 95993
4 (916) 741-7110
5 JOHN HAGAR [State Bar #81039] LAW OFFICE OF JOHN HAGAR
6 P.O. Box 86935
Los Angeles, CA 90086-0935 7 (213) 626-2089

EXHIBIT C

R l',tt~"?;n('.ys for DE'_:end.ants ':OTJN'_~Y OF SUTTER

and SHERIFF ARTHUR R. BRANDWOOD

.'"

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

DEMPSEY W. HALLER, et al.

)

NO. CIV-S-93-1256 DFL ~AN (P)

12

)

Plaintiffs,

)

STIPULATION RE POPULATION

13

)

LIMITS, ORDER

vs.

)

14

)

THE COUNTY OF SUTTER, et al. )

15

)

Defendants.

)

16 ----------------------------)

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
1 ....._._-- -----------

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 80 of 82

-'*'f.~

1

The parties hereby agree and stipulate to the following

2 injunctive orders:

3

1. This action shall proceed as a class action pursuant to

4 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23b.

5

2. Defendants are enjoined from bedding inmates on the floor.

.,

6

3. The maximum assigned bed capacities for each housing unit

7 of the Sutter County Jail are set forth below:

8

Unit 1 - 8 bedli

...

9

Unit MPS - 24 beds*

10

unit MG - 24 bcds~

11

Medical Sheltered Living - 3 beds

12

Kitchen Trustee Unit - 8 beds

13

FPC - 4 beds

14

FPS - 6 beds*

15

FS - 10 beds*

16

FJ - 4 beds

17

Jail Dormitory - 62 beds*

18

4. Defendants may operate, if conditions warrant, housing

.,

19 units MPS I MS. FPS ~ ~nd FS at tT';C ::'er!s :ilio.....aCh3 ci.Lpacity defined

20 in paragraph 3. Defendants may operate, if conditions warrant, the

21 Jail Dormitory with as many as six beds ~ove the capacity defined 22 in paragraph 3. Defendants shall not house inmates .in HPS, MS, 23 FPS, FS, and the Jail Dormitory above the capacities agreed to in 24 paragraph 3 unless beds of like classification are not available in

25 other housing units. In the event units MPS, MS, FPS, FS, and the

26 Jail Dormitory are operated above the capacity set forth in T7 paragraph 3, outdoor recreation will be provided for those units

28

2

I Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 81 of 82
~'j-~

1 operating above the capacity set forth in paragraphs 3 for at least

2 one hour per day, five days per week. In no event will any housing

3 unit operate above its paragraph 3 capacity for more than 14

4 consecutive days and, in no event will the total Jail bed capacity

5 exceed by 14 beds the total capacity set forth in paragraph 3, 6 except that except that Defendants"' may operate the Jail Dormitory

7 at its existing bed capacity of 88 beds until the Minimum Facility

8 p:i:"t::5elltly u:'!der c.;on:;tructlon ":s oper.,.tional. 1 "

9

5. The prohibition against floorsleepers is effective

10 immediately. The popUlation limits set: forth in paragraphs 3"and

11 4 shall be effective forty five [45] days from the date that this

12 Order is approved by the District Court.

13

6. Defendants are enjoined from adding beds to the Main Jail

14 in each and every housing unit which exists on the date that this 15 stipulation is executed. 2

16

7. The Sheriff of Sutter County is authorized by this order

17 to release inmates from the Sutter County Jail whenever the sutter

IE County Jail, or any specific housing unit therein, is within ten

19 percent [lO%J of being filled. Th~ Sheriff shall r.9lease inmates

20 or refuse to accept newly-committed inmates whenever all beds in

21 the Jail are filled, or whenever any specific housing unit within

22 the Jail is filled.

23
1. IIOperationalll is defined, for the purposes of this stipulation, 24 as being 50% occupied under the rated capacity assigned by the
california Board of Corrections.
25
2. This stipulation does not encompass any additional jail 26 structures to be builtin the future, whether contiguous or
attached, that are not presently within the physical confines of 27 the presently constructed Jail. This stipulation does not limit
the capacity of the Minimum Facility presently under construction.
28

3

• Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 97 Filed 03/28/14 Page 82 of 82

~'f-~.

1

8. Either party may seek to modify or terminate this

2 stipuiation pursuant to the standards set forth in Rufo v. Inmates

3 of Suffolk County Jail, ___ u.S. ---, 112 S.ct. 748 (1992).

4

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

5

6 DATE:

7

8

9 DATE:

10

11

12 DATE:
13
14
15
It is so recommended. 16

Paul Persons Attorney for Plaintiffs
ORDER

17
DATE: 9-\5"-93 18
19

Honor bl Peter Nowinski United States Magistrate Judge Eastern District of California

20
It is so ordered. 21

22 DATE: 1'= I .,- - 91
23
24

Honorable David F. Levi united states District Judge Eastern District of California

25

26

Tl

28

4

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 ESTATE OF RODNEY LOUIS BOCK, deceased, by and through
12 CYNDIE DENNY BOCK, as Administrator; KIMBERLY BOCK;
13 KELLIE BOCK; HILLARY BOCK; M.B., minor through her mother
14 and guardian ad litem Cyndie Denny Bock; LAURA LYNN BOCK;
15 and ROBERT BOCK,

No. 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-GGH

16

Plaintiffs,

17

v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

18 COUNTY OF SUTTER; COUNTY OF YUBA; J. PAUL PARKER, Sutter
19 County Sheriff’s Department Sheriff; TOM SHERRY, Director
20 of Human Services of Sutter and Yuba Counties; AMERJIT
21 BHATTAL, Assistant Director of Human Services-Mental Health
22 of Sutter and Yuba Counties; JOHN S. ZIL; CHRISTOPHER
23 BARNETT; SADOUTOUNNISSA MEER; and Does I through XL,
24 inclusive,

25

Defendants.

26

----oo0oo----

27 ///

28 ///

1

1

This action for damages was initiated by the estate and

2 surviving family members of Rodney Louis Bock (“Decedent”).

3 Plaintiffs Estate of Rodney Louis Bock, by and through Cyndie

4 Denny Bock, as administrator, Kimberly Bock, Kelly Bock, Hillary

5 Bock, M.B., a minor through her guardian ad litem Cyndie Denny

6 Bock, Laura Lynn Bock, and Robert Bock (collectively

7 “Plaintiffs”) seek to recover from Defendants County of Sutter;

8 County of Yuba; J. Paul Parker, Sutter County Sheriff; Tom

9 Sherry, Director of Human Services of Sutter and Yuba Counties;

10 Amerjit Bhattal, Assistant Director of Human Services-Health

11 Division of Sutter and Yuba Counties; Brad Luz, Assistant

12 Director of Human Services-Mental Health of Sutter and Yuba

13 Counties; John S. Zil; Christopher Barnett; and Sadoutounnissa

14 Meer (collectively “Defendants”) for injuries sustained as a

15 result of Decedent’s suicide while incarcerated at Sutter County

16 Jail (“Jail”). Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion

17 to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. For the 18 following reasons, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED.1

19

20

BACKGROUND2

21

22

Decedent was a self-employed farmer in Marysville, California,

23 for over 30 years. In late 2009, he began experiencing mental

24 health issues and required psychiatric treatment.

25
1 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the 26 Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.
Local Rule 230(g). 27
2 The following facts are derived from Plaintiffs’ First Amended 28 Complaint (“FAC”).

2

1 On several occasions from 2009 through 2010, Decedent was

2 involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to California Welfare &

3 Institutions Code § 5150 at the Sutter-Yuba Mental Health 4 Services facility (“SYMHS”),3 which was operated and managed by

5 Defendants County of Sutter and County of Yuba.

6

SYMHS provides a variety of mental health care services to

7 adults residing in Sutter and Yuba counties and to inmates of the

8 Jail. Because SYMHS has only roughly sixteen inpatient beds,

9 nine to eleven of which are typically filled at any one time,

10 Plaintiffs believe SYMHS staff members personally know, or should

11 know, all patients.

12

Decedent was first hospitalized at SYMHS on approximately

13 November 30, 2009. During that time, he was documented as

14 psychotic, delusional and grandiose. Defendant Barnett and other

15 staff evaluated and treated Decedent and diagnosed him with,

16 among other things, “Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode

17 Manic, Severe with Psychotic Features.”

18

On various occasions, Decedent did indeed exhibit delusional

19 and paranoid behavior, and, eventually, on or around January 14,

20 2010, Decedent entered a restaurant with a gun and began making

21 erratic statements. As a result of that incident, Decedent was

22 arrested, criminal charges were filed against him, and he was

23 taken to the Jail.

24 ///

25 ///

26

27 3 On two occasions, Decedent was involuntarily held for
additional periods pursuant to California Welfare & Institutions 28 Code § 5250.

3

1 According to Plaintiffs, the Jail has the capacity to house

2 approximately two-hundred prisoners, and, given its relatively

3 small size, Jail staff and supervisors must therefore have, or

4 reasonably should have, personal knowledge of all prisoners,

5 especially those exhibiting psychotic behaviors.

6

On January 15, 2010, while still housed at the Jail,

7 Decedent was referred to SYMHS for a psychiatric evaluation, at

8 which time SYMHS staff again documented his psychiatric history,

9 which included his history of delusions. In addition, later in

10 January, after Decedent had been released from the Jail, he was

11 again treated at SYMHS, pursuant to one of the above-mentioned

12 involuntary holds, by Defendants Barnett and Meer and other

13 staff, some of whom confirmed Decedent’s serious psychiatric

14 diagnoses and recommended 15-minute safety checks and daily

15 treatment.

16

Subsequently, on or around January 27, 2010, the Sutter

17 County Superior Court judge presiding over Decedent’s then-

18 pending criminal case ordered Decedent to undergo a separate

19 psychological evaluation to determine whether he was competent to

20 stand trial. The physician conducting that evaluation concluded

21 that Decedent’s highly unstable psychiatric condition rendered

22 him incompetent to be tried.

23

Approximately one month later, on March 1, 2010, another

24 Sutter County Superior Court judge ordered a placement evaluation

25 of Decedent. A different physician than the one who evaluated

26 Decedent’s competency confirmed Decedent’s psychiatric history

27 and recommended that Decedent receive outpatient treatment.

28 ///

4

1

Later, on March 25, 2010, Decedent attended a psychiatric

2 appointment with Defendant Meer, who documented that Decedent

3 remained delusional.

4

Sometime after this last appointment, Decedent, who still

5 continued to experience paranoia and delusions, began to believe

6 he was being “direct[ed]” to drive to his nephew’s home in Idaho.

7 Decedent eventually followed that “direction” but was returned to

8 California by his nephew. In the meantime, however, Decedent had

9 missed a court date and, as a result, a warrant had been issued

10 for his arrest.

11

Upon his return to California, Decedent was again taken to

12 SYMHS for evaluation and treatment. SYMHS staff confirmed

13 Decedent’s prior diagnosis of Bipolar I Disorder, Manic with

14 Severe Psychotic Features, and identified his need for inpatient

15 hospitalization or “state hospital placement.” Defendant Barnett

16 also documented that Decedent was sharing delusions of “end

17 times.”

18

Notwithstanding these observations, on April 2, Defendants

19 discharged and transferred Decedent, pursuant to the pending

20 warrant, to the custody of Sutter County Sheriff’s Department,

21 and he was again placed at the Jail. According to Plaintiffs,

22 Defendants transferred Decedent to the Jail in contravention of

23 California Welfare & Institutions Code § 5152(a) and despite

24 their knowledge of Decedent’s urgent need for inpatient care.

25 Plaintiffs also generally allege that, at the time of Decedent’s

26 discharge, Defendant Barnett and SYMHS staff provided a wholly

27 inadequate treatment plan for Decedent.

28 ///

5

1

Plaintiffs nonetheless further aver that, on the day of

2 Decedent’s transfer, Defendant Zil advised a Jail nurse that

3 Decedent was to continue taking his current medications. Two

4 days later, SYMHS and/or Sutter County Sheriff’s Department staff

5 documented Decedent’s “continued delusions” and need for further

6 psychiatric review, and, on April 8, Defendant Zil personally met

7 with Decedent.

8

Also at around this same time, the physician who had

9 conducted Decedent’s original court-ordered placement evaluation

10 sent a letter to the court retracting his outpatient treatment

11 recommendation. Shortly thereafter, on April 19, the judge who

12 had ordered Decedent’s placement evaluation found Decedent

13 incompetent to stand trial, suspended all pending proceedings,

14 and ordered that Decedent be transferred to Napa State Hospital

15 for treatment. Defendant Parker, who as Sheriff was under a

16 statutory duty to ensure Decedent was transferred in accordance

17 with the Court’s order, and all other Defendants, nonetheless

18 failed to transfer Decedent in accordance with that order.

19

By April 24, Decedent was unstable and unkempt, was talking

20 to himself and to inanimate objects and was refusing his

21 medication. According to Plaintiffs, no further evaluation of

22 Decedent was conducted, however, nor was any further treatment

23 undertaken. To the contrary, Defendant Meer, who was scheduled

24 to follow up with Decedent on April 28, failed to attend that

25 appointment.

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

6

1

Plaintiffs thus allege Defendants failed to appropriately

2 assess and medicate Decedent upon his incarceration at the Jail.

3 More specifically, Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to

4 appropriately assess Decedent’s suicide risk. Consequently, on

5 April 29, using items that Plaintiffs allege should not have been

6 permitted in Decedent’s cell due to his psychiatric condition,

7 Decedent fashioned a noose and hanged himself from the upper

8 bunk. When he was found, there were large amounts of blood

9 covering the cell floor and walls, apparently a result of

10 Decedent banging his head against the wall in a very violent

11 manner. Decedent died in his cell.

12

By this suit, Plaintiffs now assert eleven causes of action

13 against Defendants arising out of Decedent’s death. Defendants

14 moved to dismiss each claim and to strike Plaintiffs’ request for

15 punitive damages. For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion

16 to Dismiss is GRANTED and Defendants’ request to strike

17 Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages is DENIED as moot.

18

19

STANDARD

20

21

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),4 all

22 allegations of material fact must be accepted as true and

23 construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

24 Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir.

25 1996).

26 ///

27
4 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal 28 Rules of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.

7

1 Rule 8(a)(2) “requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the

2 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order

3 to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the [...] claim is and

4 the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

5 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,

6 47 (1957)). A complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to

7 dismiss does not require detailed factual allegations. However,

8 “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his

9 entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions,

10 and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action

11 will not do.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).

12 A court is not required to accept as true a “legal conclusion

13 couched as a factual allegation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

14 662, ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.

15 at 555). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to

16 relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555

17 (citing 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal

18 Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004) (stating that the

19 pleading must contain something more than “a statement of facts

20 that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right

21 of action.”)).

22

Furthermore, “Rule 8(a)(2)... requires a ‘showing,’ rather

23 than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief.” Twombly,

24 550 U.S. at 556 n.3 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

25 Thus, “[w]ithout some factual allegation in the complaint, it is

26 hard to see how a claimant could satisfy the requirements of

27 providing not only ‘fair notice’ of the nature of the claim, but

28 also ‘grounds’ on which the claim rests.”

8

1 Id. (citing 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, supra, at

2 § 1202). A pleading must contain “only enough facts to state a

3 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. If

4 the “plaintiffs ... have not nudged their claims across the line

5 from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be

6 dismissed.” Id. However, “[a] well-pleaded complaint may

7 proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of

8 those facts is improbable, and ‘that a recovery is very remote

9 and unlikely.’” Id. at 556 (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.

10 232, 236 (1974)).

11

A court granting a motion to dismiss a complaint must then

12 decide whether to grant leave to amend. Leave to amend should be

13 “freely given” where there is no “undue delay, bad faith or

14 dilatory motive on the part of the movant, ... undue prejudice to

15 the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or]

16 futility of the amendment ....” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,

17 182 (1962); Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048,

18 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (listing the Foman factors as those to be

19 considered when deciding whether to grant leave to amend). Not

20 all of these factors merit equal weight. Rather, “the

21 consideration of prejudice to the opposing party ... carries the

22 greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citing DCD

23 Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir. 1987)).

24 Dismissal without leave to amend is proper only if it is clear

25 that “the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.”

26 Intri-Plex Techs. v. Crest Group, Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1056

27 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

28 ///

9

1

ANALYSIS

2

3

At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiffs seek relief

4 for the events that transpired from April 1 to April 29, 2010.

5 See Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

6 (“Plt. Opp.”) (ECF No. 16) at pg. 1. In viewing the facts in the

7 light most favorable to the non-moving party, however, Decedent’s

8 treatment at SYMHS prior to April 1, 2010, as well as other

9 events leading up his detention in April 2010, are relevant to

10 Plaintiffs’ claims and will be considered herein.

11

A. Plaintiffs’ First Through Third Causes of Action for

12

Deliberate Indifference to Decedent’s Serious Medical

Needs.

13

14

In their first through third causes of action, Plaintiffs

15 seek relief under the Fourteenth Amendment for Defendants’

16 alleged deliberate indifference to Decedent’s serious medical

17 needs. The first cause of action is directed at all Defendants,

18 while the second and third causes of action are asserted against

19 the municipal and supervisory defendants, respectively. The

20 Court now addresses Plaintiffs’ claims by category of Defendant.

21

22

1. Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action Alleged Against

the Individual Defendants.

23

24

According to Plaintiffs, Defendants Zil, Barnett, and Meer

25 “knew there was a strong likelihood that [Decedent] was in danger

26 of serious personal harm...,” and their failure to provide mental

27 heath care to him thus constituted deliberate indifference in

28 violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

10

1 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient

2 to demonstrate Defendants Zil, Barnett and Meer’s actions

3 violated Decedent’s constitutional rights.

4

As opposed to prisoner claims under the Eighth Amendment, a

5 pretrial detainee is entitled to be free of cruel and unusual

6 punishment under the due process clause of the Fourteenth

7 Amendment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 n.16 (1979);

8 Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017-18 (9th Cir.

9 2010). A pretrial detainee’s due process right in this regard is

10 violated when a defendant fails to promptly and reasonably

11 procure competent medical aid when the pretrial detainee suffers

12 a serious illness or injury while confined. Estelle v. Gamble,

13 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). In order to establish a plausible

14 claim for failure to provide medical treatment, a plaintiff must

15 plead sufficient facts to permit the Court to infer that:

16 (1) Decedent had a “serious medical need”; and (2) a Defendant

17 was “deliberately indifferent” to that need. Jett v. Penner,

18 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); cf. Farmer v. Brennan,

19 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). A serious medical need exists when

20 “failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further

21 significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of

22 pain.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (internal citations and quotations

23 omitted).

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

11

1

The Supreme Court, in Farmer, explained in detail the

2 contours of the “deliberate indifference” standard.

3 Specifically, a Defendant is not liable under the Fourteenth

4 Amendment for his part in allegedly denying necessary medical

5 care unless he knew “of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to

6 [Decedent’s] health or safety.” 511 U.S. at 837. Deliberate

7 indifference contains both an objective and subjective component:

8 “the official must both be aware of facts from which the

9 inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm

10 exists, and he must also draw that inference.” Id. Plaintiffs

11 “need not show that a prison official acted or failed to act

12 believing that harm actually would befall an inmate; it is enough

13 that the official acted or failed to act despite his knowledge of

14 a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. at 842.

15

Negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition

16 does not, however, give rise to a claim under the Eighth

17 Amendment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. Moreover, a difference

18 of opinion between the prisoner and medical providers concerning

19 the appropriate course of treatment does not give rise to an

20 Eighth Amendment claim. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330,

21 332 (9th Cir. 1996).

22

In the FAC, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Zil, a

23 psychiatrist contracted to provide care to SYMHS patients and

24 Sutter County Jail inmates, treated Decedent in November and

25 December of 2009, as well as in April 2010. On April 2, 2010,

26 Defendant Zil allegedly communicated with a nurse at SYMHS and

27 ordered that Decedent continue taking his currently prescribed

28 medications.

12

1 In addition, on April 8, Defendant Zil personally met with 2 Decedent.5 While Plaintiffs nonetheless claim that Defendant Zil

3 failed to adequately assess and treat Decedent, those conclusory

4 allegations are insufficient to state a claim for deliberate

5 indifference. Indeed, Plaintiffs have directed most of their

6 allegations at “Defendants” generally, making it impossible to

7 discern which Defendants were responsible for which actions.

8

More to the point, Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts

9 indicating Defendant Zil, or any other Defendant for that matter,

10 actually had any indication Decedent might intend to cause harm

11 to himself. For example, while Plaintiffs allege that Defendants

12 Barnett and Meer, both psychiatrists employed by SYHMS, evaluated

13 and treated Decedent prior to his April incarceration, Plaintiffs

14 fail to allege that either Defendant had contact with Decedent

15 during anytime in April 2010. In addition, although Plaintiffs

16 allege that Defendant Meer missed an April 28, 2010, appointment

17 with Decedent, there are no facts pled demonstrating that

18 Defendant Meer had a “sufficiently culpable mind” in doing so.

19 See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Accordingly, while a failure to

20 treat Decedent’s condition could potentially give rise to a

21 constitutional violation, Plaintiffs have not pled the requisite

22 facts relating to the individual Defendants. Plaintiffs’ first

23 cause of action directed at Defendants Zil, Barnett and Meer is

24 thus dismissed with leave to amend.

25 ///

26
5 Plaintiffs have advised in their Opposition that they intend to 27 amend their pleading based on newly discovered facts indicating
Defendant Zil never visited Decedent or provided any treatment at 28 the jail. Pls. Opp. 9 n.5.

13

1

2. Plaintiffs’ First and Third Causes of Action

Alleged Against the Supervisory Defendants.

2

3

In their first and third claims for relief, Plaintiffs

4 allege that Defendants Parker, Sherry, Bhattal and Luz are liable

5 for the deliberate indifference of other named Defendants because

6 the other Defendants’ acts were a direct and proximate result of

7 customs, practices, and policies of these supervisory Defendants.

8 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims against the supervisory

9 Defendants must be dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to

10 identify any pertinent policies or practices attributable to

11 Defendants Parker, Sherry, Bhattal and Luz and because Plaintiffs

12 improperly ascribe all purported failures very generally to the

13 Defendants as a group.

14

“In order for a person acting under color of state law to be

15 liable under section 1983 there must be a showing of personal

16 participation in the alleged rights deprivation: there is no

17 respondeat superior liability under section 1983.” Jones v.

18 Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). “Supervisory

19 liability is imposed against a supervisory official in his

20 individual capacity for his own culpable action or inaction in

21 the training, supervision, or control of his subordinates, for

22 his acquiescence in the constitutional deprivations of which the

23 complaint is made, or for conduct that showed a reckless or

24 callous indifference to the rights of others.” Menotti v. City

25 of Seattle, 409 F.3d 1113, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Larez v.

26 City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 646 (9th Cir. 1991)).

27 ///

28 ///

14

1 In other words, each government official may only be held liable

2 for his own misconduct. Bowell v. Cal. Substance Abuse Treatment

3 Facility, 2011 WL 2224817, at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 7, 2011).

4

However, government officials acting as supervisors may be

5 liable under § 1983 under certain circumstances. A defendant may

6 be held liable as a supervisor under § 1983 if there exists

7 either: “(1) his or her personal involvement in the

8 Constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection

9 between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional

10 violation.” Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989).

11 Thus, Section 1983 actions against supervisors are proper as long

12 as a sufficient causal connection exists and the plaintiff was

13 deprived under color of law of a federally secured right.

14 Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting

15 Redman v. Cnty. of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1447 (9th Cir.

16 1991)).

17

The requisite causal connection between a supervisor’s

18 wrongful conduct and the violation of the prisoner’s

19 constitutional rights can be established in a number of ways.

20 Plaintiffs may show that a supervisor set in motion a series of

21 acts by others, or knowingly refused to terminate a series of

22 acts by others, which the supervisor knew or reasonably should

23 have known would cause others to inflict a Constitutional injury.

24 Dubner v. City of S.F., 266 F.3d 959, 968 (9th Cir. 2001).

25 Similarly, a supervisor’s own culpable action or inaction in the

26 training, supervision, or control of his subordinates may

27 establish supervisory liability. Starr, 652 F.3d at 1208.

28 ///

15

1 Finally, a supervisor’s acquiescence in the alleged

2 constitutional deprivation, or conduct showing deliberate

3 indifference toward the possibility that deficient performance of

4 the task may violate the rights of others, may establish the

5 requisite causal connection. Id.; Menotti, 409 F.3d at 1149.

6

Defendants correctly argue that, as with the individual

7 Defendants, Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts demonstrating 8 each supervisory Defendant’s role in any alleged deprivation.6

9 Without some specific allegations against each named Defendant,

10 Plaintiffs’ claims cannot withstand Defendants’ Motion to

11 Dismiss.

12

13

3. Plaintiff’s First and Second Causes of Action

Alleged Against the Municipal Defendants.

14

15

In their first and second claims for relief, Plaintiffs

16 allege that Defendants County of Sutter and County of Yuba

17 violated the Fourteenth Amendment because the individually named

18 Defendants’ deliberate indifference toward Decedent was a direct

19 and proximate result of County of Sutter and County of Yuba’s

20 policies, customs or practices.

21 ///

22 ///

23 ///

24

25 6 The Court is cognizant that Plaintiffs have attempted to allege
Defendant Parker failed to comply with the superior court order 26 to transfer Decedent to Napa State Hospital. While such a
failure would certainly be significant, Plaintiffs have alleged 27 no facts indicating Sheriff Parker had or should have had any
indication the court order had been issued or that Defendant 28 Parker failed to act on any such information.

16

1 Defendants argue that because there was an actual policy in place

2 regarding the identification and treatment of mental disorders,

3 Plaintiffs’ claims dependent on other policies regarding the

4 treatment of inmates are inconsistent and must fail. Defendants

5 also argue that the policies identified by Plaintiffs were not

6 the moving force behind any alleged constitutional violations.

7

A municipality may be liable for violating a party’s

8 constitutional rights resulting from a policy, ordinance, or

9 regulation pursuant to a governmental custom. Monell v. Dep’t of

10 Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). The policy must be the

11 “moving force” behind the constitutional violation. Villegas v.

12 Gilroy Garlic Festival Ass’n, 541 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2008).

13 Section 1983 requires that there is an actual connection or link

14 between the actions of a defendant and the deprivation alleged to

15 have been suffered by the plaintiff. Id.

16

In order to survive Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, then,

17 Plaintiffs must allege sufficient facts to permit the court to

18 infer the plausibility of each of the following elements: (1) an

19 employee violated the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights; (2) the

20 municipality has customs or policies that amount to deliberate

21 indifference to those rights; and (3) those customs or policies

22 were the moving force behind the violation of the employee’s

23 constitutional rights. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d

24 1175, 1193-94 (9th Cir. 2002). As set forth in the preceding

25 sections, Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts sufficient to

26 demonstrate any employee violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional

27 rights. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants

28 County of Sutter and County of Yuba must fail.

17

1

B. Plaintiffs’ Fourth Cause of Action for Loss of

Parent/child Relationship.

2

3

Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action asserts that all

4 Defendants violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by

5 depriving Plaintiffs of their liberty interest in the parent-

6 child relationship. The due process claim protects the right to

7 familial relations between family members. See, e.g., Stanley v.

8 Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972) (“The integrity of the family

9 unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the

10 Fourteenth Amendment....”) (citing Meyer v. Nebraksa, 262 U.S.

11 390, 399 (1923)). However, only official conduct that “shocks

12 the conscience” is cognizable as a due process violation. County

13 of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846 (1998) (citing

14 Rochin v. Cal., 342 U.S. 165, 172-73 (1952)). The threshold

15 question in such cases is “whether the behavior of the

16 governmental officer is so egregious, so outrageous, that it may

17 fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience.” Lewis,

18 523 U.S. at 847 n. 8. The type of conduct which is most likely

19 to rise to the “conscience-shocking level” is “conduct intended

20 to injure in some way unjustifiable by any government interest.”

21 Id. at 849. Conduct which was not intentional, but rather was

22 deliberately indifferent, may nevertheless rise to the

23 conscience-shocking level in some circumstances. Id. at 849–50.

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

18

1

Plaintiffs’ instant claim is predicated on the allegations

2 set forth in Plaintiffs’ first, second, and third causes of

3 action. More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the

4 “aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants in being

5 deliberatively indifferent to [Decedent],” through their direct

6 actions or failure to take measures to prevent Decedent’s

7 suicide, amount to a violation of the Plaintiffs’ rights under

8 the substantive due process clauses of the first and fourteenth

9 amendments. For the same reasons already discussed in the

10 preceding section, Plaintiffs’ general allegations that

11 Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Decedent’s serious

12 medical needs are likewise insufficient to demonstrate that any

13 Defendant’s conduct “shocks the conscience.” Indeed, Plaintiffs

14 did not plead facts demonstrating any Defendant’s conduct meets

15 the requisite standard to establish a substantive due process

16 violation. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ fourth claim for relief is

17 dismissed with leave to amend.

18

19

C. Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action for Violation of

Title Ii of the Americans with Disabilities Act and

20

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

21

22

In their fifth cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that

23 Defendants County of Sutter and County of Yuba discriminated

24 against Decedent in violation of the Americans with Disabilities

25 Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131, et seq., and the Rehabilitation

26 Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701, et seq., because “he was not placed in a

27 setting, or provided appropriate services, to reasonably

28 accommodate his disability and treatment needs.”

19

1 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims under the ADA and

2 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act must be dismissed because

3 Plaintiffs fail to present facts identifying how Decedent was

4 denied treatment, or which particular programs Decedent was

5 denied access to, because of his disability. In their

6 Opposition, Plaintiffs argue that their claims are based on

7 Defendants’ total withholding of treatment for Decedent and aver

8 that Decedent “had no way to access services available to

9 non-disabled inmates.”

10

Both the ADA and Rehabilitation Act prohibit disability

11 discrimination. Specifically, Title II of the ADA provides that

12 “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of

13 such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied

14 the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public

15 entity, or be subject to discrimination by such entity.”

16 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The ADA defines “public entity” in relevant

17 part as “any State or local government” or “any department,

18 agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a

19 State or States or local government,” 42 U.S.C.

20 § 12131(1)(A)-(B), and the Supreme Court has found that “[s]tate

21 prisons fall squarely within the [statute’s] definition of public

22 entity.” Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S.

23 206, 210 (1952) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

20

1 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act states that “[n]o otherwise

2 qualified handicapped individual in the United States...shall,

3 solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the

4 participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to

5 discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal

6 financial assistance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794. Both the ADA and the

7 Rehabilitation Act have been found to apply to services,

8 programs, and activities for detainees. See, e.g., Pierce v.

9 County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1214-1215 (9th Cir. 2008).

10

Although Plaintiffs allege Decedent did not receive adequate

11 medical treatment, there are no facts in the FAC demonstrating

12 that Defendants did not provide treatment to Decedent because he

13 was disabled. See Alexander v. Tilton, 2009 WL 464486 at *7

14 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2009) (finding plaintiff’s allegations that

15 he did not receive proper medical treatment did not state a claim

16 under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act). Put differently,

17 Plaintiffs have not pled that Decedent was treated differently

18 than other inmates who did not suffer from a disability. Compare

19 Peacock v. Terhune, 2002 WL 459928 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23,

20 2002) (finding a plaintiff stated a claim under the ADA because

21 he alleged he was treated differently, as a paraplegic, than

22 other inmates who did not suffer from the same, or a similar,

23 disability). Although Plaintiffs argue in their opposition that

24 Decedent did not have access to services that were made available

25 to non-disabled inmates, Plaintiffs do not cite to any part of

26 their FAC to substantiate their position.

27 ///

28 ///

21

1

Plaintiffs do cite a case from the Northern District to

2 support their argument that “‘outright denial of medical

3 services’...may be ‘so unreasonable as to demonstrate that

4 [defendants] were discriminating against [plaintiff] because of

5 his disability.’” Anderson v. County of Siskiyou, 2010 WL 3619821

6 at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2010) (quoting Kiman v. New Hampshire

7 Dep’t of Corr., 451 F.3d 274, 285 (1st Cir. 2006)). However,

8 that case has not been cited by any court for that proposition,

9 and other courts within this circuit have, to the contrary,

10 required plaintiffs to plead facts demonstrating they were

11 treated differently because of their disabilities. See Peacock,

12 2002 WL 4599928 at *2; Alexander, 2009 WL 464486 at *7. More

13 importantly, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that “[t]he ADA

14 prohibits discrimination because of disability, not inadequate

15 treatment for disability.” Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz.,

16 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, this Court

17 declines to follow Anderson and finds that Plaintiffs have failed

18 to plead facts sufficient to allege that the Defendants

19 discriminated against Decedent because of his disability.

20 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action

21 is GRANTED with leave to amend.

22

23

D. Plaintiffs’ Sixth Cause of Action for Violation of

California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

24

25

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants County of Sutter and

26 County of Yuba violated California Civil Code §§ 51 and 52

27 (“Unruh Act”) by failing to reasonably accommodate Decedent’s

28 disability and treatment needs.

22

1 Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ claim must be dismissed because

2 SYMHS and Sutter County Jail are not “business establishments”

3 subject to the Unruh Act.

4

The Unruh Act provides that “[a]ll persons within the

5 jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and...are entitled

6 to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities,

7 privileges, or services in all business establishments of every

8 kind whatsoever.” Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b). Although the

9 California Supreme Court has found that the Legislature intended

10 the term “business establishment” be interpreted “in the broadest

11 sense reasonably possible,” Isbister v. Boys’ Club of Santa

12 Cruz, Inc., 40 Cal. 3d 72, 78 (1985), the Unruh Act has yet to be

13 applied to claims against correctional facilities, see Lee v.

14 Wilkinson, 2009 WL 2824758 at *7 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Instead,

15 several district courts have explicitly found that prisons are

16 not business establishments under the Unruh Act. See Taormina v.

17 Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 946 F. Supp. 829, 834 (S.D. Cal. 1996);

18 Wilkins-Jones v. County of Alameda, 2010 WL 4780291 at *9 (N.D.

19 Cal. 2010) (finding defendant County of Alameda was not liable

20 under Unruh Act). The Court finds this authority persuasive and

21 holds that Sutter County Jail is not a business establishment 22 under the Unruh Act.7 Accordingly, Plaintiffs claim under the

23 Unruh Act arising out of Decedent’s treatment at Sutter County

24 Jail fails.

25

26 7 Plaintiffs’ analogy to public school districts is unpersuasive,
as it has been well established that public school districts are 27 business establishments subject to the Unruh Act. See, e.g.,
D.K. ex rel. G.M. v. Solano County Office of Educ., 2008 WL 28 5114965 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2008).

23

1

Notably, Plaintiffs do not distinguish between SYMHS and

2 Sutter County Jail in their FAC or Opposition. Without deciding

3 whether SYHMS is subject to the Unruh Act at this point, the

4 Court finds it also appropriate to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims

5 relating to Decedent’s treatment at SYMHS because Plaintiffs have

6 not alleged facts substantiating their conclusory allegation that

7 Decedent was discriminated against in violation of the Unruh Act

8 while at SYMHS.

9

10

E. Plaintiffs’ Seventh Cause of Action for Professional

Negligence/medical Malpractice.

11

12

Plaintiffs allege Defendants County of Sutter, County of

13 Yuba, Zil, Barnett and Meer were negligent in their failure to

14 properly assess and treat Decedent’s serious mental illness.

15

First and foremost, the entity Defendants move to dismiss

16 this claim on the ground that they are immune from liability

17 because Plaintiffs failed to provide a statutory basis for the

18 cause of action. Under California Government Code section 815,

19 “a public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury

20 arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public

21 employee or any other person, except as provided by statute.”

22 Cal. Gov. Code § 815(a). Plaintiffs concede that Defendants’

23 Motion to Dismiss should be granted as to the County of Sutter

24 and County of Yuba in light of Section 815. Accordingly, this

25 claim against Defendants County of Sutter and County of Yuba is

26 dismissed without leave to amend.

27 ///

28 ///

24

1

Turning to the individually named Defendants, Plaintiffs

2 generally allege that Defendants Zil, Barnett and Meer were

3 negligent in their failure to appropriately assess and evaluate

4 Decedent, to prescribe necessary psychiatric medication, to

5 ensure compliance with that medication and to ensure proper

6 treatment. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant Barnett was

7 negligent in discharging Decedent from SYMHS to Sutter County

8 Jail in early April 2010.

9

These Defendants argue that they are immune from liability

10 under California Government Code sections 855.6 and 855.8.

11 Section 855.6 shields a public employee from liability “for

12 injury caused by the failure to make a[n] examination, or to make

13 an adequate [] examination,...for the purpose of determining

14 whether [a] person has a...mental condition that would constitute

15 a hazard to the health and safety of himself or others.”

16 Similarly, Section 855.8 provides that a public employee is not

17 liable “for injury resulting from diagnosing or failing to

18 diagnose that a person is afflicted with mental illness [] or

19 from failing to prescribe for mental illness....” Cal. Gov. Code

20 § 855.8(a). Defendants correctly argue that Plaintiffs’

21 allegations regarding their alleged failure to properly assess

22 and evaluate Decedent, as well as their alleged failure to

23 prescribe appropriate medications, fall squarely within sections

24 855.6 and 855.8, and therefore, they are immune from liability on

25 that basis.

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

25

1

Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that the immunity granted under

2 section 855.6 does not apply in “situation[s] where the defendant

3 fails to provide medical care for a prisoner in obvious need of

4 such care,” as set forth in Lum v. City of San Joaquin,

5 756 F. Supp. 2d 1243 (E.D. Cal. 2010). However, Plaintiffs do

6 not cite to any facts pled in their FAC demonstrating that it was

7 “obvious” to Defendants Zil, Barnett and Meer that Decedent

8 needed any care that they failed to provide. Accordingly,

9 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted with respect to

10 Plaintiffs’ negligence claims arising out of Defendants’ alleged

11 failure to properly evaluate Decedent or prescribe medication for

12 any mental condition.

13

Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding Defendants’ alleged

14 failure to ensure Decedent complied with his prescriptions and

15 received appropriate treatment arguably fall within an exception

16 to immunity codified in Section 855.8(d). See Cal. Gov. Code

17 § 855.8(d) (employee not shielded from liability for an injury

18 “caused by his negligent or wrongful act or omission in

19 administering any treatment prescribed for mental illness....”).

20 Defendants, however, correctly point out that Plaintiffs’ FAC

21 does not contain facts relating to each individually named

22 Defendant’s failure to ensure compliance with prescriptions or

23 proper treatment. Indeed, Plaintiffs only allege that Defendant

24 Zil and other Defendants provided “grossly inadequate treatment”

25 and that Defendant Meer failed to keep an appointment with

26 Decedent. These allegations alone do not demonstrate that any

27 Defendant failed to properly administer any prescribed treatment,

28 consequently causing Decedent’s death.

26

1 Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ seventh

2 claim for relief is granted as to this theory as well.

3

Finally, although Plaintiffs allege Defendant Barnett

4 negligently discharged Decedent on April 2, 2010, there are no

5 facts in the FAC to support this allegation. See FAC at ¶¶ 79-85

6 (alleging, generally, that Defendants should not have discharged

7 Decedent). Plaintiffs allege that Decedent was seen by Defendant

8 Barnett, but they do not plead any facts relating to a decision

9 made by Defendant Barnett regarding Decedent’s transfer from

10 SYHMS to Sutter County Jail. Id. Accordingly, without factual

11 support, Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendant Barnett negligently

12 discharged Decedent must be disregarded, see Twombly, 550 U.S. at

13 555, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ seventh claim

14 for relief relating to Defendant Barnett’s allegedly negligent

15 discharge of Decedent is granted. Plaintiffs’ seventh cause of

16 action is thus dismissed with leave to amend.

17

18

F. Plaintiffs’ Eight Cause of Action for Negligence/

Negligence Per Se.

19

20

Plaintiffs allege that all individually named Defendants had

21 a duty to operate and manage SYMHS and Sutter County Jail, as

22 defined by various laws, standards and regulations, and

23 Defendants’ breach of those duties caused Decedent’s injuries.

24 Defendants correctly argue that Plaintiffs have failed to

25 identify any specific statute, ordinance or regulation in support

26 of their claim, and for this reason, Plaintiffs’ claim for

27 negligence per se is dismissed with leave to amend.

28 ///

27

1 See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Cal. Evid. Code § 669 (1967);

2 accord Lorbeer v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 958 F.2d 377 (9th

3 Cir. 1992) (finding a plaintiff’s negligence per se claim failed

4 “because he [did] not idenif[y] a specific, relevant statutory

5 violation...”).

6

7

G. Plaintiffs’ Ninth Cause of Action for Negligent

Supervision, Training, Hiring and Retention.

8

9

Plaintiffs allege Defendants Parker, Sherry, Bhattal and

10 Luz were negligent in hiring, supervising, training and retaining

11 employees and thus caused Decedent’s injuries. Defendants

12 correctly argue that Plaintiffs’ claim must be dismissed because

13 Plaintiffs have failed to provide a statutory basis for their

14 cause of action.

15

Plaintiffs’ ninth claim is really a claim against the

16 entities and not the employees. See, e.g., Sanders v. City of

17 Fresno, 2006 WL 1883394, *11 (“‘Failure to train...is a “direct”

18 act on the part of the entity, not on the part of the

19 employee.’”) (quoting Reinhardt v. Santa Clara County, 2006 WL

20 662741 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2006)); see also Megargee ex rel.

21 Lopez v. Wittman, 2006 WL 2988945, *10 n.2 (E.D. Cal.). Pursuant

22 to California Government Code § 815, however, public entities

23 cannot be held directly liable in tort except as specifically

24 provided by statute. Caldwell v. Montoya, 10 Cal. 4th 972, 980

25 (1995). Neither the parties nor the Court has identified a

26 statutory basis for the entities’ liability in this case. See,

27 e.g., Megargee, 2006 WL 2988945 at *10. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’

28 ninth cause of action must be dismissed.

28

1

H. Plaintiffs’ Tenth Cause of Action for Failure to

Furnish/Summon Medical Care.

2

3

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Parker, Sherry, Bhattal,

4 Luz, Zil, Barnett and Meer knew, or had reason to know, that

5 Decedent was in need of immediate medical and mental health care,

6 yet they failed to take action to summon or provide care.

7 Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants failed to timely

8 respond to Decedent’s “psychotic episode” on April 29 when “he

9 engaged in numerous acts of self-harm before hanging himself....”

10 Defendants argue that because Plaintiffs’ FAC does not contain

11 any facts relating to each individual Defendants’ actual or

12 constructive knowledge of an immediate need for care for a

13 serious or obvious medical condition, however, Plaintiffs’ tenth

14 cause of action must be dismissed.

15

A claim for failure to furnish medical care is based on a

16 violation of California Government Code § 845.6, which states in

17 pertinent part:

18

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable

for injury proximately caused by the failure of the

19

employee to furnish or obtain medical care for a

prisoner in his custody; but... a public employee, and

20

the public entity where the employee is acting within

the scope of his employment, is liable if the employee

21

knows or has reason to know that the prisoner is in

need of immediate medical care and he fails to take

22

reasonable action to summon such medical care...”

23

In their FAC, Plaintiffs only refer to one Defendant

24 specifically that had contact with Decedent at Sutter County Jail

25 between April 2 and April 29, 2010: Defendant Zil. Specifically,

26 Plaintiffs allege that on April 8, Zil had an in-person

27 psychiatric meeting with Decedent.

28 ///

29

1 There are no further allegations, however, regarding Zil’s

2 knowledge of Decedent’s immediate need for medical care and his

3 subsequent failure to summon care. Although Plaintiffs pled that

4 Defendants generally knew, or should have known, about Decedent’s

5 need for further psychiatric treatment, the facts presented by

6 Plaintiffs in their FAC are not sufficient to demonstrate that

7 each named Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of

8 Decedent’s immediate need for care. Compare, e.g., Jett,

9 439 F.3d 1091 (finding disputed issues of fact precluded summary

10 judgment on the inmate-plaintiff’s failure to summon medical care

11 claim because a doctor ordered follow-up visits for plaintiff

12 following a fracture to his thumb and plaintiff filed repeated

13 requests to be seen by a health care provider, which were ignored

14 by defendants); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Accordingly,

15 Plaintiffs’ claim for failure to summon medical care is dismissed

16 with leave to amend.

17

18

I. Plaintiffs’ Eleventh Cause of Action for Wrongful

Death.

19

20

Plaintiffs allege that Decedent’s injuries in this case are

21 a result of the negligence of all Defendants, and therefore,

22 Defendants are liable under California Code of Civil Procedure

23 377.60 for the funeral and burial expenses incurred by

24 Plaintiffs. Defendants argue that this claim is duplicative of

25 Plaintiffs’ negligence claim as to Defendants Zil, Barnett, and

26 Meer. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs fail to allege

27 facts sufficient to state a claim against the remaining

28 Defendants for negligence.

30

1

Plaintiffs correctly argue that a claim for wrongful death

2 is a separate cause of action. See Ruiz v. Podolsky, 50 Cal. 4th

3 838, 844 (Cal. 2010). Indeed, “‘[u]nlike some jurisdictions

4 where wrongful death actions are derivative, [section] 377.60

5 creates a new cause of action in favor of the heirs as

6 beneficiaries, based upon their own independent pecuniary injury

7 suffered by loss of a relative, and distinct from any the

8 deceased might have maintained had he survived.’” Id. (quoting

9 Horwich v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 4th 272, 283 (Cal. 1999).

10 However, Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts sufficient to

11 demonstrate that Defendants’ negligence caused Decedent’s death.

12 See supra at 5-8. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

13 Plaintiffs’ eleventh cause of action is granted with leave to

14 amend.

15

16

CONCLUSION

17

18

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to

19 Dismiss (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED without leave to amend as to

20 Plaintiffs’ seventh cause of action against Defendants County of

21 Sutter and County of Yuba, and GRANTED with leave to amend as to 22 all of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims.8 Not later than thirty (30)

23 days following the date this Memorandum and Order is

24 electronically filed, Plaintiff may (but is not required to) file

25 a Second Amended Complaint.

26

27 8 Given that this Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ entire FAC,
Defendants’ additional request to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for 28 punitive damages is DENIED as moot.

31

1

If no amended complaint is filed within said thirty-day

2 period, without further notice to the parties, those causes of

3 action dismissed by virtue of this Order will be deemed dismissed

4 with prejudice.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated: February 7, 2012
7

8

_____________________________

9

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

32

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 ESTATE OF RODNEY LOUIS BOCK, et al.,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

vs.

13

COUNTY OF SUTTER, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

/

CIV. NO. S-11-0536 MCE GGH ORDER

16

Previously pending on this court’s law and motion calendar for January 5, 2012

17 was defendant County of Sutter’s motion for protective order and for temporary stay of

18 discovery, filed December 12, 2011. Aaron Fischer and Ernest Galvan appeared for plaintiffs.

19 John Whitefleet represented defendant. Having heard oral argument and reviewed the joint

20 statement, the court now issues the following order.

21 BACKGROUND

22

Plaintiffs are heirs of Rodney Bock, who committed suicide in the Sutter County

23 Jail on April 29, 2010, after suffering from mental illness. This action was initiated on February

24 24, 2011, and the first amended complaint was filed May 25, 2011. Alleged are claims for

25 deliberate indifference to Bock’s mental health needs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Monell type

26 liability against Sutter and Yuba Counties, violation of substantive due process, violations of

1

1 Title II of the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and their state law counterparts,

2 medical malpractice, negligence, negligent supervision, training, hiring and retention, wrongful

3 death and failure to furnish/summon medical care, under state law. Pending before Judge

4 England is a motion to dismiss filed by all defendants.

5

Defendant filed the instant motion, contending that plaintiffs should not get

6 discovery because the parties have not yet met and conferred, and because defendants have a

7 potentially dispositive motion to dismiss that is under submission with Judge England.

8 DISCUSSION

9

I. Whether Discovery is Permitted in Light of Rule 26(f)

10

Defendant contends that because the parties have not completed their Rule 26(f)

11 conference, discovery may not yet be sought pursuant to Rule 26(d)(1). Defendant argues that

12 the joint status report contemplates postponing initial disclosures which is all that is remaining to

13 complete the meet and confer requirement, while plaintiffs assert that the parties have met and

14 conferred pursuant to Rule 26(f), as evidenced by their joint status report which memorializes the

15 meet and confer process.

16

Although initial disclosures generally precede discovery, it is not required that

17 they do so. Plaintiffs’ argument that they need discovery as to identities of Doe Defendants has

18 merit at this stage of the proceedings where the pleadings are not yet settled. Defendant’s

19 argument that its motion to dismiss may obviate the need for any or all discovery requires a peek

20 at the motion itself. Therefore, defendant’s alternative ground for relief, that discovery should be

21 temporarily stayed, will be analyzed.

22

II. Whether Discovery Should be Stayed

23

A. Standards For Granting A Stay Of Discovery

24

This court has great discretion to issue protective orders denying discovery.

25 B.R.S. Land Investors v. United States, 596 F.2d 353, 356 (9th Cir. 1979). Nonetheless, the

26 Federal Rules provide that good cause is required in order for a party to obtain a protective order.

2

1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Kiblen v. Retail Credit Co., 76 F.R.D. 402, 404 (E.D. Wash. 1977). To

2 prevail on a motion for a protective order, the party seeking the protection has the burden to

3 demonstrate “particular and specific demonstration[s] of fact, as distinguished from conclusory

4 statements . . . .” Id.; Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653

5 (D.Nev. 1989); Kamp Implement Co. v. J.I. Case Co., 630 F. Supp. 218, 219 (D. Mont. 1986).

6

This court generally applies a two pronged analysis in deciding whether to grant a

7 protective order staying discovery before other pending motions can be heard. First, a pending

8 motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least dispositive on the issue at

9 which discovery is directed. Panola Land Buyer’s Ass’n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1560 (11th

10 Cir. 1985). Magistrate judges have been given broad discretion to stay discovery pending

11 decisions on dispositive motions, including motions for summary judgment. Id.; see also,

12 Scroggins v. Air Cargo, Inc., 534 F.2d 1124, 1133 (5th Cir. 1976). The court may, for example,

13 stay discovery when it is convinced that plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief or if the

14 action is moot. B.R.S. Land Investors, 596 F.2d at 356; Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 801

15 (9th Cir. 1981).

16

Second, the court must determine whether the pending dispositive motion can be

17 decided absent additional discovery. See, e.g., Church of Scientology of San Francisco v.

18 Internal Revenue Service, 991 F.2d 560, 563 (9th Cir. 1993), vacated in part on other grounds, 30

19 F.3d 101 (9th Cir. 1994). If the court answers these two questions in the affirmative, a protective

20 order may issue. However, if either prong of this test is negative, discovery proceeds. Denying a

21 protective order is particularly appropriate if a stay of discovery could preclude either party from

22 fully preparing for the pending dispositive motion. Id.

23

B. Analysis

24

The requested discovery is not needed to combat the motion to dismiss, which is

25 already briefed and under submission. Plaintiffs believe that the first prong of the discovery stay

26 test will not be met, i.e., defendants will not ultimately be successful on their motion to dismiss;

3

1 therefore, the motion is not dispositive of the proceedings.1

2

The remainder of the court’s discussion will thus focus on the merits of

3 defendants’ motion to dismiss as the reason for a discovery stay. It must be emphasized that the

4 undersigned does not sit as the adjudicator on the merits of defendants’ dispositive motion. No

5 pronouncement of this court concerning the merits of the dispositive motion binds the district

6 judge in any way. However, the undersigned must take a “peek” at the merits in order to assess

7 the validity of the stay of discovery motion. Obviously, if the motion (in the undersigned’s

8 opinion) is completely devoid of merit, the motion will not stand to bar discovery at this time.

9 On the other hand, if the motion will surely be granted, this court would exercise its discretion to

10 block discovery in order to alleviate wasted resources and time. Neither of the above extreme

11 endpoints on the dispositive spectrum is apparent with respect to the issues in defendants’

12 motion.

13

Here, defendants’ motion appears colorable, but it can not be said that the motion

14 will surely be granted, especially with respect to the case as a whole. As a result, discovery

15 should not be stayed for any lengthy period. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that some claims

16 and/or defendants might be eliminated by the motion, and the undersigned is reluctant to require

17 defendants to expend resources and perform much work in responding to discovery that might be 18 mooted by the granting of the motion in whole or in part.2 Therefore, discovery will be permitted

19 at present, but only insofar as it seeks the identity of potential Doe Defendants. All remaining

20 discovery will be stayed for thirty days. In thirty days from the filed date of this order, all other

21 discovery may commence, if the district judge has not ruled on the pending motion to dismiss. If

22 \\\\\

23

24

1 Plaintiffs additionally point out that the decedent’s parents are elderly and this case

should therefore proceed without delay. As stated earlier, they also seek discovery of Doe

25 Defendants, possibly for amendment of the complaint.

26

2 It is very likely that defendants’ dispositive motion will be decided soon.

4

1 the district judge has ruled, further discovery will, of course, be determined by the nature of the

2 ruling.

3 ONCLUSION

4

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: Defendant County of Sutter’s motion for

5 protective order and for temporary stay of discovery, filed December 12, 2011, (dkt. no. 21), is

6 granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs may immediately obtain discovery regarding 7 identities of potential Doe Defendants. All remaining discovery is stayed for thirty days from the 8 date of this order.

9 DATED: January 9, 2012

10
11
GGH:076:Bock0536.sta.wpd
12

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13

14 15 16

17

18

19

20

21 22 23

24

25

26

5

 
 Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 108 Filed 07/22/14 Page 1 of 2

[1244379-1]

1 MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891

ERNEST GALVAN – 196065

2 KATHRYN G. MANTOAN – 239649

AARON J. FISCHER – 247391

3 JENNIFER L. STARK – 267062

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

4 315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor

San Francisco, California 94104-1823

5 Telephone: (415) 433-6830

Facsimile: (415) 433-7104

6 Email:

mbien@rbgg.com

egalvan@rbgg.com

7

kmantoan@rbgg.com

afischer@rbgg.com

8

jstark@rbgg.com

9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

13 Estate of RODNEY LOUIS BOCK, deceased, by and through CYNDIE DENNY BOCK, as
14 Administrator; KIMBERLY BOCK; KELLIE BOCK; HILLARY BOCK; MORGEN BOCK;
15 LAURA LYNN BOCK; and Estate of ROBERT BOCK,
16 Plaintiffs,
17 v.
18 COUNTY OF SUTTER; COUNTY OF YUBA;
19 J. PAUL PARKER, Sutter County Sheriff’s Department Sheriff; LEWIS MCELFRESH,
20 Sutter County Jail Division Commander; NORMAN BIDWELL, Sutter County Jail
21 Corrections Lieutenant; JOHN S. ZIL; CHRISTOPHER BARNETT; BOBBY JOE
22 LITTLE; DAVID CALAPINI; SHAUN FLIEHMAN; RAINBOW CRANE; KATY
23 MULLIN; DONICE MCGINNIS; BALJINDER RAI; and Does I through XL, inclusive,
24 Defendants.
25

Case No. 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

26

27

28

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 108 Filed 07/22/14 Page 2 of 2

[1244379-1]

1

WHEREAS the parties to the above-captioned action have reached agreement to

2 settle all claims against all defendants in this matter; and

3

WHEREAS defendants have tendered full payment of all amounts set forth in the

4 settlement agreement;

5

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, through their

6 respective attorneys of record, that the above-captioned action be dismissed in its entirety

7 with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), each party to

8 bear its own fees and costs except to the extent provided in the respective settlement

9 agreements.

10

11 DATED: July 22, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

12

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

13

14

By: /s/ Aaron J. Fischer

15

Aaron J. Fischer

16

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17 DATED: July 22, 2014

PORTER SCOTT

18

19

By: /s/ John R. Whitefleet (as authorized on 7/22/14)

John R. Whitefleet 20

21

Attorneys for Defendants

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

 
 [1288495-1]

1 MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891

ERNEST GALVAN – 196065

2 KATHRYN G. MANTOAN – 239649

AARON J. FISCHER – 247391

3 JENNIFER L. STARK – 267062

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

4 315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor

San Francisco, California 94104-1823

5 Telephone: (415) 433-6830

Facsimile: (415) 433-7104

6 Email:

mbien@rbgg.com

egalvan@rbgg.com

7

kmantoan@rbgg.com

afischer@rbgg.com

8

jstark@rbgg.com

9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10 JOHN R. WHITEFLEET – 213301 PORTER SCOTT
11 A Professional Corporation 350 University Avenue, Suite 200
12 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 929-1481
13 Facsimile: (916) 927-3706

14 Attorneys for Defendants

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

18

Estate of RODNEY LOUIS BOCK, deceased, Case No. 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN

19 by and through CYNDIE DENNY BOCK, as

Administrator; et al.,

ORDER GRANTING

20

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiffs,

WITH PREJUDICE

21

v.

22

COUNTY OF SUTTER; et al.,

23

Defendants.

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

[1288495-1]

1

On July 22, 2014, the parties in the above-captioned action filed a joint Stipulation

2 of Dismissal with Prejudice. See ECF No. 108. Pursuant to the parties’ submission, and

3 good cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal.

4

The above-captioned action shall be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice

5 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), each party to bear its own fees

6 and costs except to the extent provided in the respective settlement agreements. The Clerk

7 of the Court is directed to close this case.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: September 3, 2014

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 CYNDIE DENNY BOCK, et al.,

No. 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-GGH

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

14 COUNTY OF SUTTER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

17

This action for damages was initiated by the estate and surviving family members

18 of Rodney Louis Bock (“Decedent”). Plaintiffs Estate of Rodney Louis Bock, by and

19 through Cyndie Denny Bock, as Administrator, Kimberly Bock, Kelly Bock, Hillary Bock,

20 M.B., a minor through her guardian ad litem Cyndie Denny Bock, Laura Lynn Bock, and

21 the Estate of Robert Bock (collectively “Plaintiffs”) seek to recover from Defendants

22 County of Sutter; County of Yuba; J. Paul Parker, Sutter County Sheriff’s Department

23 Sheriff (“Parker”); David Samson, Sutter County Jail Division Commander (“Samson”);

24 Norman Bidwell, Sutter County Jail Corrections Lieutenant (“Bidwell”); John S. Zil (“Zil”);

25 Christopher Barnett (“Barnett”); Bobby Joe Little (“Little”); David Calapini (“Calapini”);

26 Shaun Fliehman (“Fliehman”); R.C.; Katy Mullin (“Mullin”); Denise McGinnis

27 (“McGinnis”); and the Sutter County Jail Facility Manager (“Facility Manager”)

28 /// 1

1 (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries sustained as a result of Decedent’s suicide while

2 incarcerated at Sutter County Jail (“Jail”). Presently before the Court is Defendants’

3 Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”).1 For the

4 following reasons, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.2

5

6

BACKGROUND3

7

8

Decedent was a self-employed farmer in Marysville, California, for over 30 years.

9 In late 2009, he began experiencing mental health issues and required psychiatric

10 treatment. On several occasions from 2009 through 2010, Decedent was involuntarily

11 hospitalized pursuant to California Welfare & Institutions Code § 5150 (“Section 5150”) 12 at the Sutter-Yuba Mental Health Services facility (“SYMHS”),4 which was operated and

13 managed by Defendants County of Sutter and County of Yuba.

14

SYMHS provides a variety of mental health care services both to adults residing

15 in Sutter and Yuba counties and to inmates at the Jail. Because SYMHS has only

16 roughly sixteen inpatient beds, nine to eleven of which are typically filled at any one time,

17 Plaintiffs believe SYMHS staff members personally know, or should know, all patients.

18 ///

19 ///

20 ///

21

22

1 Within the Motion, Defendants also seek to strike Plaintiffs’ punitive damages

allegations and move alternatively for a more definite statement. Despite the potentially

23 different standards governing these requests, the Court will for convenience refer to Defendants’ Motion generally as a Motion to Dismiss.
24
2 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this 25 matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g).

26

3 The following facts are derived from Plaintiffs’ TAC.

27 4 On two occasions, Decedent was involuntarily held for additional periods
28 pursuant to California Welfare & Institutions Code § 5250 (“Section 5250”).

2

1

Decedent was first hospitalized at SYMHS on approximately November 30, 2009.

2 During that time, he was documented as psychotic, delusional and grandiose.

3 Defendant Barnett, a psychiatrist employed by SYMHS, and other staff evaluated and

4 treated Decedent and diagnosed him with, among other things, “Bipolar I Disorder, Most

5 Recent Episode Manic, Severe with Psychotic Features.”

6

On various occasions, Decedent did indeed exhibit delusional and paranoid

7 behavior, and, eventually, on or around January 14, 2010, Decedent was arrested as a

8 result of an incident at an Applebee’s restaurant. Criminal charges were filed against

9 him, and he was taken to the Jail. According to Plaintiffs, the Jail has the capacity to

10 house approximately two-hundred prisoners, and, given its relatively small size, Jail staff

11 and supervisors must therefore have, or reasonably should have, personal knowledge of

12 all inmates, especially those exhibiting psychotic behaviors.

13

On January 15, 2010, while still housed at the Jail, Decedent was referred to

14 SYMHS for a psychiatric evaluation, at which time SYMHS staff again documented his

15 psychiatric history, which included his history of delusions. In addition, later in January,

16 after Decedent had been released from the Jail, he was again treated at SYMHS,

17 pursuant to one of the above-mentioned involuntary holds, by Barnett and other staff,

18 some of whom confirmed Decedent’s serious psychiatric diagnoses and recommended

19 15-minute safety checks and daily treatment.

20

In the meantime, on or around January 27, 2010, the Sutter County Superior

21 Court judge presiding over Decedent’s then-pending criminal case ordered Decedent to

22 undergo a separate psychological evaluation to determine whether he was competent to

23 stand trial. The physician conducting that evaluation concluded that Decedent’s highly

24 unstable psychiatric condition rendered him incompetent to be tried.

25

Just over one month later, on March 1, 2010, another Sutter County Superior

26 Court judge ordered a placement evaluation of Decedent. A different physician than the

27 one who evaluated Decedent’s competency confirmed Decedent’s psychiatric history

28 and recommended that Decedent receive outpatient treatment. 3

1

Subsequently, in late March, Decedent, who still continued to experience

2 paranoia and delusions, began to believe he was being “direct[ed]” to drive to his

3 nephew’s home in Idaho. Decedent eventually followed that “direction,” but was

4 returned to California by his nephew. In the interim, however, Decedent had missed a

5 court date and, as a result, a warrant had been issued for his arrest.

6

On April 1, 2010, Decedent was again taken by his family to SYMHS for

7 evaluation and treatment. Barnett confirmed Decedent’s prior diagnosis of Bipolar I

8 Disorder, Manic with Severe Psychotic Features, and identified his need for inpatient

9 hospitalization or “state hospital placement.” The next day, Barnett determined that

10 Decedent needed at least an additional two weeks of involuntary psychiatric

11 hospitalization pursuant to Section 5150. Decedent was thereafter required pursuant to

12 Section 5150 to remain hospitalized for a 72-hour period of treatment and evaluation

13 unless his psychiatrist believed after personal observation that he could leave earlier.

14

Notwithstanding these observations, that same day, Barnett discharged and

15 transferred Decedent, pursuant to the pending warrant, to the custody of Sutter County

16 Sheriff’s Department, and he was again placed at the Jail. According to Plaintiffs,

17 Defendants transferred Decedent to the Jail in contravention of Welfare & Institutions

18 Code § 5152 (“Section 5152”) and despite their knowledge of Decedent’s urgent need

19 for inpatient care. Plaintiffs also allege that, at the time of Decedent’s discharge,

20 Defendant Barnett and SYMHS staff provided a wholly inadequate treatment plan for

21 Decedent. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Fliehman, as Deputy Officer of

22 Sutter County Jail, improperly booked Decedent into the Jail without conducting an

23 adequate assessment of his suicide risk and thus erroneously placed Decedent in a

24 general population jail cell. Decedent was held in custody at Sutter County Jail as a

25 pretrial detainee from April 2, 2010, until April 29, 2010.

26 ///

27 ///

28 /// 4

1

During that time, Defendant Zil, who actually authored a Sutter County Jail

2 Suicide Prevention Handbook in which he identified signs of suicide risk among jail

3 inmates (e.g., visual or auditory hallucinations, severe paranoia, delusions and ideas of

4 grandeur), was assigned as Decedent’s treating physician. Zil was informed of

5 Decedent’s condition and prescribed him psychiatric medication. In total, Zil had one

6 clinical contact with Decedent. Given these facts, Plaintiffs allege that Zil knew or should

7 have known that Decedent was refusing to take his prescribed psychiatric medications.

8

In the meantime, the physician who had conducted Decedent’s original court-

9 ordered placement evaluation sent a letter to the court retracting his outpatient treatment

10 recommendation. Shortly thereafter, on April 19, the judge who had ordered Decedent’s

11 placement evaluation found Decedent incompetent to stand trial, suspended all pending

12 proceedings, and ordered that Decedent be transferred to Napa State Hospital for

13 treatment. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Parker in his role as Sutter County Sheriff,

14 Samson as Jail Commander, Bidwell as Jail Lieutenant, and the Sutter County Jail

15 Facility Manager knew or should have known about this order, but nonetheless failed to

16 transfer him, despite the fact the State Hospital was prepared to accept Decedent for

17 treatment and had transmitted notice of its acceptance to these Defendants.

18

Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants Little and Calapini as officers assigned to

19 Decedent’s general housing pod, R.C. who was responsible for providing mental health

20 and/or medical services at the Jail, and Sutter County Jail Nurses Mullin and McGinnis

21 each had interactions with and observations of Decedent in the days prior to his death.

22 It is alleged that each Defendant observed and documented one or more indicators that

23 Decedent required further treatment.

24

By April 24, Decedent was unstable and unkempt, was talking to himself and to

25 inanimate objects and was refusing his medication. According to Plaintiffs, no further

26 evaluation of Decedent was conducted, however, nor was any further treatment

27 undertaken.

28 /// 5

1

Plaintiffs thus allege Defendants failed to appropriately assess and medicate

2 Decedent upon his incarceration at the Jail. More specifically, Plaintiffs allege

3 Defendants failed to appropriately assess Decedent’s suicide risk. In addition, Plaintiffs

4 contend that, on April 29, 2010, Defendants Little and Calapini were responsible for

5 conducting hourly safety checks of Decedent. They failed, however, to conduct the 8:00

6 p.m. check and, consequently, using items that Plaintiffs allege should not have been

7 permitted in Decedent’s cell due to his psychiatric condition, Decedent fashioned a

8 noose and hanged himself from the upper bunk. When he was found, there were large

9 amounts of blood covering the cell floor and walls, apparently a result of Decedent

10 banging his head against the wall in a very violent manner. Defendants Little, Calapini,

11 Fliehman and McGinnis purportedly failed to timely respond or provide life-saving

12 intervention or treatment to Decedent. Decedent died in his cell.

13

Since that time, the Sutter County Grand Jury issued a report finding, among

14 other things, that the Jail has known deficiencies with relation to its provision of mental

15 health care and medical treatment to inmates. For example, the Grand Jury found

16 deficiencies such as inadequate medical staffing, lack of required training on suicide

17 prevention and other medical treatment, non-compliant medical policies and procedures

18 and a non-compliant medical program. According to the Grand Jury, those deficiencies

19 were “unacceptable.” Plaintiffs also allege that, since Decedent’s death, several other

20 inmates have also passed away from preventable causes.

21

By this suit, Plaintiffs now assert eleven causes of action against Defendants

22 arising out of Decedent’s death. Defendants move to dismiss each claim and/or for a

23 more definitive statement and move to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages. For

24 the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28 /// 6

1

STANDARD

2

A. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.

3

4

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil

5 Procedure 12(b)(6)5, all allegations of material fact must be accepted as true and

6 construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins.

7 Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). Rule 8(a)(2) “requires only ‘a short and plain 8 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 9 defendant fair notice of what the...claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell. 10 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 11 47 (1957)). A complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not require 12 detailed factual allegations. Id. However, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds 13 of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic

14 recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. (internal citations and

15 quotations omitted). A court is not required to accept as true a “legal conclusion

16 couched as a factual allegation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting

17 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The Court also is not required “to accept as true allegations

18 that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.”

19 In re Gilead Sciences Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal citations

20 and quotations omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

21 above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

22

Furthermore, “Rule 8(a)(2)...requires a ‘showing,’ rather than a blanket assertion,

23 of entitlement to relief.” Id. at 556 n.3 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

24 “Without some factual allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see how a claimant could

25 satisfy the requirements of providing not only ‘fair notice’ of the nature of the claim, but

26 also ‘grounds’ on which the claim rests.” Id. (citation omitted).

27 5 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil
28 Procedure unless otherwise noted.
7

1 A pleading must contain “only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on

2 its face.” Id. at 570. If the “plaintiffs...have not nudged their claims across the line from

3 conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed.” Id. However, “a well-

4 pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those

5 facts is improbable, and ‘that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.’” Id. at 556 (quoting

6 Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)).

7

A court granting a motion to dismiss a complaint must then decide whether to

8 grant leave to amend. Leave to amend should be “freely given” where there is no

9 “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,...undue prejudice to

10 the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of the

11 amendment....” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Eminence Capital, LLC v.

12 Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (listing the Foman factors as those to

13 be considered when deciding whether to grant leave to amend). Dismissal without leave

14 to amend is proper only if it is clear that “the complaint could not be saved by any

15 amendment.” Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Crest Group, Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1056 (9th Cir.

16 2007) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

17

18

B. Motion for More Definite Statement.

19

20

Before interposing a responsive pleading, a defendant may move for a more

21 definitive statement if “a pleading...is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot

22 reasonably prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). A Rule 12(e) motion is proper

23 when the plaintiff’s complaint is so indefinite that the defendant cannot ascertain the

24 nature of the claim being asserted. Gay-Straight Alliance Network v. Visalia Unified Sch.

25 Dist., 262 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1099 (E.D. Cal. 2001).

26 ///

27 ///

28 /// 8

1

Due to the liberal pleading standards in the federal courts embodied in Rule 8(e)

2 and the availability of extensive discovery, courts should not freely grant motions for

3 more definitive statements. Famolare, Inc. v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc., 525 F. Supp.

4 940, 949 (E.D. Cal. 1981). Indeed, a motion for a more definitive statement should be

5 denied unless the information sought by the moving party is not available or is not

6 ascertainable through discovery. Id.

7

8

ANALYSIS

9

A. Plaintiffs’ first claim for relief against the individual Defendants for their

deliberate indifference to Decedent’s serious medical needs. 10

11

12

In their first through third causes of action, Plaintiffs seek relief under the

13 Fourteenth Amendment for the individual Defendants’ alleged deliberate indifference to

14 Decedent’s serious medical needs. As opposed to prisoner claims under the Eighth

15 Amendment, a pretrial detainee is entitled to be free of cruel and unusual punishment

16 under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S.

17 520, 537 n.16 (1979); Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017-18 (9th Cir.

18 2010). A pretrial detainee’s due process right in this regard is violated when a defendant

19 fails to promptly and reasonably procure competent medical aid when the pretrial

20 detainee suffers a serious illness or injury while confined. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.

21 97, 104-05 (1976). In order to establish a plausible claim for failure to provide medical

22 treatment, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to permit the Court to infer that:

23 (1) Decedent had a “serious medical need”; and (2) a Defendant was “deliberately

24 indifferent” to that need. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); cf. Farmer

25 v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). A serious medical need exists when “failure to

26 treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary

27 and wanton infliction of pain.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (internal citations and quotations

28 omitted). 9

1 The deliberate indifference standard has been specifically applied to inmates’ suicide

2 prevention. Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1241 (9th Cir. 2010).

3

The Supreme Court, in Farmer, explained in detail the contours of the “deliberate

4 indifference” standard. Specifically, a Defendant is not liable under the Fourteenth

5 Amendment for his part in allegedly denying necessary medical care unless he knew “of

6 and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to [Decedent’s] health or safety.” 511 U.S. at 837.

7 Deliberate indifference lies “somewhere between the poles of negligence at one end and

8 purpose or knowledge at the other.” Id. at 836. Deliberate indifference contains both an

9 objective and subjective component: “the official must both be aware of facts from which

10 the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must

11 also draw that inference.” Id. Plaintiffs “need not show that a prison official acted or

12 failed to act believing that harm actually would befall an inmate; it is enough that the

13 official acted or failed to act despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm.”

14 Id. at 842.

15

With regard to the subjective “knowledge” component, the Supreme Court

held that: [Whether a defendant] had the requisite knowledge of a

16

substantial risk is a question of fact subject to demonstration in the usual

ways, including inference from circumstantial evidence ... and a fact finder

17

may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very

fact that the risk was obvious. 18

19 Id. (emphasis added). However, it is not enough to demonstrate that a reasonable

20 person should have known of the risk. A reasonable trier of fact must be able to properly

21 infer that the particular Defendant did in fact know of the risk. Id. at 842-843; see also

22 Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 299 (1991). The threshold for inaction to constitute

23 deliberate indifference is high. See Conn v. City of Reno, 591 F.3d 1081, 1097 (9th Cir.

24 2009) (holding that the magnitude of the risk must be “so obvious that [the defendant]

25 must have been subjectively aware of it”).

26 ///

27 ///

28 /// 10

1

The crux of the individual Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ first cause of

2 action is that “Plaintiffs admit [Decedent] was seen by mental health providers, and was

3 prescribed medications, but fall short of alleging any Defendant was aware of any

4 suicidal ideation for which they failed to reasonably act.” Motion, 1:20-2:1. Defendants

5 are correct that the TAC contains no allegation indicating Decedent ever stated he was

6 suicidal. The Court nonetheless finds Plaintiffs’ remaining allegations sufficient to state a

7 deliberate indifference claim against each of the individual Defendants for, as explained

8 below: 1) improper transfer of Decedent from SYMHS to the Jail; 2) failure to provide

9 medical care at the Jail; and 3) failure to transfer Decedent from the Jail to the State

10 Hospital.

11

1. Improper transfer from SYMHS to the Jail (against Defendants

12

Barnett and Fliehman).

13

14

Plaintiffs’ deliberate indifference cause of action arising out of Decedent’s

15 purportedly improper discharge from SYMHS for transfer to the Jail is directed at

16 Defendants Barnett and Fliehman. As to Barnett, Plaintiffs contend he failed to properly

17 complete a suicide assessment when Decedent was discharged to the Jail, despite

18 having been held for less than the 72-hours mandated by state law. See Cal. Welf. &

19 Inst. Code § 5152(a). Barnett purportedly confirmed Decedent’s diagnosis of Bipolar I

20 disorder, Manic with Severe Psychotic Features, and recommended interventions,

21 including provision of a “safe and structured milieu” and “redirection as required [and]

22 observ[ation] for safety” to protect Decedent. TAC, ¶ 83. In addition, Barnett determined

23 that Decedent required at least two additional weeks of involuntary psychiatric

24 hospitalization pursuant to Section 5250. Barnett nonetheless discharged Decedent just

25 one day into his involuntary hold, despite having the subjective knowledge that the Jail

26 “could not, and would not, provide the necessary hospital-level treatment” Decedent

27 required. Id., ¶¶ 88-89.

28 /// 11

1 Given Plaintiffs’ allegations that Barnett was subjectively aware that Decedent’s

2 condition posed safety concerns, and that Barnett disregarded those concerns in

3 discharging Decedent, Plaintiffs have adequately stated a claim against this Defendant.

4

Plaintiffs similarly aver that Fliehman improperly booked Decedent into the Jail

5 without conducting an adequate assessment of his suicide risk and that Fliehman thus

6 erroneously placed Decedent in a general population jail cell. According to Plaintiffs,

7 Fliehman had access to and reviewed Decedent’s discharge documentation and other

8 SYMHS materials indicating that he had been committed due to his grave disability, that

9 he was psychotic, grandiose and delusional, with markedly impaired insight and

10 judgment and that he had been further diagnosed as described above. Despite this

11 knowledge, Fliehman allegedly placed Decedent in a general population single cell

12 without providing for appropriate safety observations. These allegations are sufficient

13 under Rule 8 to support an inference that Fliehman knew Decedent suffered from a

14 serious mental illness that could result in his self-harm and that Fliehman was

15 deliberately indifferent to that risk. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is

16 DENIED as to both Barnett and Fliehman.

17

18

2. Failure to provide medical care at the Jail (against Defendants Zil,

Little, Calapini, R.C., Mullin and McGinnis). 19

20

21

First, as to Defendant Zil, Decedent’s treating physician at the Jail, Plaintiffs

22 allege he prescribed Decedent lithium, a drug used to treat bipolar disorder and to

23 reduce the risk of self-harm. Plaintiffs further aver that Zil knew that Decedent had been

24 involuntarily hospitalized, that he was delusional, that he was diagnosed with psychosis,

25 that he was expressing grandiose ideas and that he was refusing to take his prescribed

26 medication. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that Zil authored a Sutter County Jail Suicide

27 Prevention Handbook, in which he listed many of Decedent’s symptoms as “well-known

28 signs of suicide risk among jail inmates.” TAC, ¶ 104. 12

1 Based on these facts, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Zil knew Plaintiff had a

2 serious mental illness that could result in his own self-harm and that Zil was deliberately

3 indifferent to that risk. Zil’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ first cause of action is thus

4 DENIED.

5

Plaintiffs’ allegations as to Defendants Calapini, Little, Mullin, McGinnis and R.C.

6 are sufficient as well. According to Plaintiffs, each of these Defendants was aware that

7 Decedent: 1) had been transferred to the Jail from SYMHS where he was being

8 involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to Section 5150; 2) was still delusional, suffering from

9 hallucinations or was psychotic; 3) was engaging in acts of self-harm in his cell; and 4)

10 was refusing psychiatric medications, which placed Decedent at increased risk of self-

11 harm and suicide. These allegations, taken together, support the inference that each

12 Defendant, “knowing of Decedent’s need for a different treatment, disregarded

13 Decedent’s serious medical needs and therefore deliberately denied, delayed or

14 interfered with that treatment, thus exhibiting deliberate indifference.” Smith v. County of

15 San Diego, 2012 WL 628307, *5 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2012). Defendants’ Motion to

16 Dismiss Plaintiffs’ first cause of action as to Calapini, Little, Mullin, McGinnis and R.C. is

17 thus DENIED.

18

19

3. Failure to transfer Decedent from the Jail to the State Hospital

(against Defendants Parker, Samson, Bidwell and Facility

20

Manager).

21

22

Plaintiffs’ deliberate indifference claim against Defendants Parker, Samson,

23 Bidwell and the Jail Facility Manager is based on their failure to timely transfer Plaintiff to

24 the Napa State Hospital. According to Plaintiffs, on April 19, 2010, Decedent was

25 ordered to be promptly transferred to that psychiatric facility. That order was placed in a

26 county file that was available to SYMHS and Jail staff. Plaintiffs aver that Defendant

27 Parker knew or should have known of this order and that he failed to timely effect

28 Decedent’s transfer. 13

1 Plaintiffs likewise contend that Defendant Samson, who was responsible for inmate

2 admissions and discharges, and Defendant Bidwell, who was also responsible for

3 transfer of mentally or medically ill inmates, were both informed or should have been

4 informed of that order and that the Facility Manager reviewed the April 19 transfer order

5 as well. Finally, Plaintiffs contend that Napa State Hospital had notified Sutter County

6 that Decedent was approved for admission and that each Defendant had been informed

7 of such approval. These Defendants nonetheless failed to timely effectuate Decedent’s

8 transfer. Accordingly, despite their knowledge of Decedent’s psychiatric history already

9 detailed above, Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Decedent’s need for inpatient

10 treatment. Plaintiffs have thus adequately stated a claim here, and Defendants’ Motion

11 to Dismiss is DENIED as to Parker, Samson, Bidwell and Facility Manager.

12

13

B. Plaintiffs’ first and second claims for relief against the County of Sutter

and County of Yuba for deliberate indifference to Decedent’s serious

14

medical needs.

15

16

A municipality may be liable for violating a party’s constitutional rights resulting

17 from a policy, ordinance, or regulation pursuant to a governmental custom. Monell v.

18 Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). The policy must be the “moving force”

19 behind the constitutional violation. Villegas v. Gilroy Garlic Festival Ass’n, 541 F.3d 950,

20 957 (9th Cir. 2008). Section 1983 requires that there is an actual connection or link

21 between the actions of a defendant and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by

22 the plaintiff. Id. In sum, to survive Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, then, Plaintiffs must

23 allege sufficient facts to permit the court to infer the plausibility of each of the following

24 elements: (1) an employee violated the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights; (2) the municipality

25 has customs or policies that amount to deliberate indifference to those rights; and (3)

26 those customs or policies where the moving force behind the violation of the employee’s

27 constitutional rights. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1193-94 (9th Cir.

28 2002). 14

1

By way of their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants contend first that Plaintiffs have

2 failed to allege an underlying constitutional violation as required under Monell. Second,

3 Defendants point out a distinction between a one-time occurrence and a more

4 comprehensive or ongoing policy. Lastly, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to allege a

5 causal connection between any policy and the resulting constitutional violations. In other

6 words, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Defendants’

7 omissions directly caused Decedent’s suicide.

8

First, as detailed above, Plaintiffs’ TAC adequately alleges constitutional

9 violations by employees of both the County of Sutter and the County of Yuba. In

10 addition, Plaintiffs specifically allege the existence of a number of the entity Defendants’

11 policies, customs or practices that purportedly contributed to Decedent’s death. Namely,

12 Plaintiffs allege that those policies and practices include, but are not limited to, the

13 following:

14

Failure to conduct appropriate and complete suicide assessments;

15

Failure to create and implement appropriate mental health treatment

plans; 16

Failure to follow clinical judgments and recommendations; 17

Failure to promptly evaluate and transfer inmates to a psychiatric hospital

18

who are gravely disabled and at risk of serious harm;

19

Failure to take precautions to prevent suicide among high risk and

mentally ill inmates; 20

Failure to implement appropriate emergency treatment policies; 21

Failure to provide appropriate staffing and training at the Jail to provide

22

minimally adequate treatment for seriously ill inmates.

23 TAC, ¶ 159. Given the early stage of this litigation, in which the facts are not fully

24 developed, the Court declines to hold that Plaintiffs cannot plausibly show that the above

25 policies, procedures or customs amount to deliberate indifference.

26 ///

27 ///

28 /// 15

1

Finally, any of these policies could likewise plausibly be found to be the “moving

2 force” behind the constitutional violation alleged here. “[F]or liability to attach in this

3 circumstance the identified deficiency in a city's training program must be closely related

4 to the ultimate injury.” City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 391 (1989). In other

5 words, there must be a causal link between the municipal policy or custom and the

6 claimed constitutional violation. Id. The “closely related” or “moving force” requirement

7 is akin to the tort law causation standard of proximate cause. See Harper v. City of Los

8 Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008). “[P]roximate cause, although derived

9 from tort law, fairly describes a Plaintiffs’ causation burden with respect to a municipal

10 liability claim under § 1983.” Cash v. County of Erie, 654 F.3d 324, 342 (2d Cir. 2011)

11 (internal citations omitted). Specifically, the court must determine whether the

12 constitutional deprivation was a foreseeable result of the alleged inadequate training.

13 Cf. Arnold v. International Business Machines Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir.

14 1981) (explaining that causation in the context of certain Section 1983 cases “closely

15 resembles the standard ‘foreseeability’ formulation of proximate cause”). Again based

16 on the early stage at which this question is presented here, and drawing all inferences in

17 Plaintiffs’ favor, the Court cannot hold as a matter of law that the entity Defendants’

18 policies were not the moving force behind the deprivation of Decedent’s constitutional 19 rights.6 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the first and second causes of action as to the

20 County of Sutter and the County of Yuba is thus DENIED.

21

6 The Court’s decision is not changed by the existence of an express policy

22 requiring that “[i]nmates with suspected mental disorders, who are a potential danger to themselves or others or appear to be gravely disabled shall be promptly evaluated and,

23 if clinically indicated, transferred to an appropriate psychiatric treatment

facility….Regardless of the time of presentation, significantly disordered behavior should

24 be evaluated promptly, within twenty-four hours at the latest. The Jail Lieutenant or Jail

Facility Manager will be contacted and will make every effort to transfer mentally 25 disordered inmates to appropriate treatment facilities. All attempts and efforts to

26 implement the transfer of such inmates, whether successful or not, shall be documented.” TAC, ¶ 127. Rather, if, as alleged in the TAC, a valid policy is either

27 unconstitutionally applied or not applied, “the city is liable if the employee has not been

adequately trained and the constitutional wrong has been caused by that failure to train.”

28 City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 387.

16

1

C. Plaintiffs’ first and third claims for relief against the Supervisory

Defendants for deliberate indifference to Decedent’s serious medical

2

needs.

3

4

Defendants move to dismiss claims against Defendants Parker, Samson and

5 Bidwell on “supervisory liability” grounds. Plaintiffs argue that each of said Defendants

6 knew that Decedent was prematurely and improperly transferred to Sutter County Jail

7 and that Defendants improperly created an environment in which credentialed custody

8 staff did not possess the authority to determine who could be sent to the hospital.

9 Plaintiffs assert that Defendants Parker, Samson and Bidwell “tacitly encouraged, ratified

10 and/or approved of the acts and/or omissions” which allegedly violated Decedent’s

11 constitutional rights. TAC, ¶ 166. Plaintiffs argue that the Court should infer that

12 ignoring inmates’ serious medical needs was customary and wrongfully condoned by

13 said Defendants. For their part, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ allegations are too

14 vague and inchoate because they lack specific facts regarding each supervisory

15 Defendant’s role in the alleged constitutional violations.

16

“In order for a person acting under color of state law to be liable under section

17 1983 there must be a showing of personal participation in the alleged rights deprivation:

18 there is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983.” Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d

19 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). “Supervisory liability is imposed against a supervisory official in

20 his individual capacity for his own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision,

21 or control of his subordinates, for his acquiescence in the constitutional deprivations of

22 which the complaint is made, or for conduct that showed a reckless or callous

23 indifference to the rights of others.” Menotti v. City of Seattle, 409 F.3d 1113, 1149 (9th

24 Cir. 2005) (quoting Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 646 (9th Cir. 1991)). In

25 other words, each government official may only be held liable for his own misconduct.

26 Bowell v. Cal. Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, 2011 WL 2224817, at *4 (E.D. Cal.

27 June 7, 2011).

28 /// 17

1

However, government officials acting as supervisors may be liable under § 1983

2 under certain circumstances. A defendant may be held liable as a supervisor under §

3 1983 if there exists either: “(1) his or her personal involvement in the Constitutional

4 deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful

5 conduct and the constitutional violation.” Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir.

6 1989). Thus, Section 1983 actions against supervisors are proper “as long as a

7 sufficient causal connection is present and the plaintiff was deprived under color of law

8 of a federally secured right.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting

9 Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1447 (9th Cir. 1991)).

10

The requisite causal connection between a supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the

11 violation of the prisoner’s constitutional rights can be established in a number of ways.

12 Plaintiffs may show that a supervisor set in motion a series of acts by others, or

13 knowingly refused to terminate a series of acts by others, which the supervisor knew or

14 reasonably should have known would cause others to inflict a Constitutional injury.

15 Dubner v. City of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959, 968 (9th Cir. 2001). Similarly, a

16 supervisor’s own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his

17 subordinates may establish supervisory liability. Starr, 652 F.3d at 1208. Finally, a

18 supervisor’s acquiescence in the alleged constitutional deprivation, or conduct showing

19 deliberate indifference toward the possibility that deficient performance of the task may

20 violate the rights of others, may establish the requisite causal connection. Id.; Menotti,

21 409 F.3d at 1149.

22

The Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ supervisory liability claim in their First Amended

23 Complaint on the basis that it did not sufficiently plead facts demonstrating each

24 supervisory Defendant’s role in any alleged deprivation. However, the additional facts

25 pled in Plaintiffs’ TAC allow the Court to infer that a reasonable trier of fact, after

26 discovery, could reasonably find that the supervisory Defendants were aware of and

27 failed to act on constitutional violations regularly practiced by the Sutter County Jail.

28 /// 18

1 The very fact that, as alleged, Decedent’s court-ordered transfer, which could have

2 saved his life, was purportedly disregarded implicates the supervisors because the type

3 of error alleged suggests that the mistake was a result of flawed measures which were

4 likely implemented by employees in managerial roles. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

5 Plaintiffs’ Supervisory Liability claim against Defendants Parker, Samson and Bidwell is

6 therefore DENIED.

7

8

D. Plaintiffs fourth claim for relief for loss of parent/child relationship.

9

10

Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action asserts that all Defendants violated the First and

11 Fourteenth Amendments by depriving Plaintiffs of their liberty interest in the parent-child

12 relationship. Defendants attack those allegations on the basis that Plaintiffs’ allegations

13 are so overly broad that they fail to state a claim.

14

The due process claim protects the right to familial relations between family

15 members. See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972) (“The integrity of the

16 family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

17 Amendment....”) (citing Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)). However, only

18 official conduct that “shocks the conscience” is cognizable as a due process violation.

19 County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846 (1998) (citing Rochin v. Cal., 342

20 U.S. 165, 172-73 (1952)). The threshold question in such cases is “whether the

21 behavior of the governmental officer is so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be

22 said to shock the contemporary conscience.” Lewis, 523 U.S. at 847 n. 8. The type of

23 conduct which is most likely to rise to the “conscience-shocking level” is “conduct

24 intended to injure in some way unjustifiable by any government interest.” Id. at 849.

25 Conduct which was not intentional, but rather was deliberately indifferent, may

26 nevertheless rise to the conscience-shocking level in some circumstances. Id. at 849–

27 50.

28 /// 19

1

Plaintiffs’ instant claim is predicated on the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs’ first,

2 second, and third causes of action. More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the

3 “aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants in being deliberatively indifferent

4 to [Decedent],” through their direct actions or failure to take measures to prevent

5 Decedent’s suicide, amount to a violation of the Plaintiffs’ rights under the substantive

6 due process clauses of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. TAC, ¶ 171. For the

7 same reasons already discussed in the preceding sections, Plaintiffs’ allegations that

8 Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Decedent’s serious medical needs are

9 likewise sufficient to demonstrate that any Defendant’s conduct “shocks the conscience.”

10 Indeed, Plaintiffs have pled adequate facts demonstrating that Defendants’ conduct

11 meets the requisite standard to establish a substantive due process violation.

12 Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ fourth claim for relief is DENIED.

13

14

E. Plaintiffs’ fifth claim for relief for violation of Title II of the Americans

with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 15

16

17

In their fifth cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants County of Sutter and

18 County of Yuba discriminated against Decedent in violation of the Americans with

19 Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and Section 504 of the

20 Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq., “based on the denial of appropriate

21 placement, services, and setting that were necessary to reasonably accommodate his

22 mental disability needs” at the Jail. TAC, ¶ 180. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants

23 failed to provide accommodations for Decedent’s disability, “resulting in the denial of the

24 benefits of the Jail’s services, programs, and/or activities that included the care and

25 custody necessary for an inmate to survive his pre-trial detention without serious injury.”

26 Id., ¶ 132.

27 ///

28 /// 20

1 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims under the ADA and Section 504 of the

2 Rehabilitation Act must be dismissed because Plaintiffs fail to present facts identifying

3 how Decedent was denied treatment, or which particular programs Decedent was denied

4 access to, because of his disability. In their Opposition, Plaintiffs argue that their claims

5 are based on Defendants’ total withholding of treatment for Decedent and aver that

6 Decedent was “unable to access the care available to non-disabled inmates.”

7 Opposition, 20:15-16.

8

Both the ADA and Rehabilitation Act prohibit disability discrimination. Specifically,

9 Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason

10 of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the

11 services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subject to discrimination by such

12 entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The ADA defines “public entity” in relevant part as “any

13 State or local government” or “any department, agency, special purpose district, or other

14 instrumentality of a State or States or local government,” 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A)-(B),

15 and the Supreme Court has found that “[s]tate prisons fall squarely within the [statute’s]

16 definition of public entity.” Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206,

17 210 (1952) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

18 Act states that “[n]o otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States . . .

19 shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied

20 the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving

21 Federal financial assistance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794. Both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act

22 have been found to apply to services, programs and activities for detainees. See, e.g.,

23 Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1214-1215 (9th Cir. 2008).

24

Although Plaintiffs allege Decedent did not receive adequate medical treatment,

25 there are no facts in the TAC demonstrating that Defendants did not provide treatment to

26 Decedent because he was disabled. See Alexander v. Tilton, 2009 WL 464486, at *7

27 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2009) (finding plaintiff’s allegations that he didn’t receive proper

28 medical treatment did not state a claim under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act). 21

1 Put differently, Plaintiffs have not pled that Decedent was treated differently than other

2 inmates who did not suffer from a disability. Peacock v. Terhune, 2002 WL 459928, at

3 *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2002) (finding a plaintiff stated a claim under the ADA because he

4 alleged he was treated differently as a paraplegic than other inmates who did not suffer

5 from the same or a similar disability). While Plaintiffs continue to allege that Decedent

6 had a greater risk of harm than other inmates, they fail to show that Decedent was

7 denied benefits that others were offered. Indeed, Plaintiffs do not allege that any other

8 inmates were offered mental health services or in-house clinical visits that Decedent was

9 denied.

10

Therefore, because the pleadings do not adequately demonstrate that the other

11 inmates were offered any services that Decedent was denied as a result of his disability,

12 this Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts sufficient to allege that the

13 Defendants discriminated against Decedent because of his disability. Defendants’

14 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action is thus GRANTED with leave to amend.

15

16

F. Plaintiffs’ sixth claim for relief for violation of California’s Unruh Civil

Rights Act. 17

18

19

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants County of Sutter and County of Yuba violated

20 California Civil Code §§ 51 and 52 (“Unruh Act”) by failing to reasonably accommodate

21 Decedent’s disability and treatment needs. Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ claim must be

22 dismissed because SYMHS and Sutter County Jail are not “business establishments”

23 subject to the Unruh Act.

24

The Unruh Act prohibits “business establishments” from engaging in intentional

25 discrimination. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b). Although the California Supreme Court has

26 found that “the Legislature intended the phrase ‘business establishment’ be interpreted

27 ‘in the broadest sense reasonably possible,’” the Unruh Act has yet to be applied to

28 claims against correctional facilities. 22

1 Isbister v. Boys’ Club of Santa Cruz, Inc., 40 Cal. 3d 72, 78 (1985) (internal citations

2 omitted). Instead, several district courts have explicitly found that prisons are not

3 business establishments under the Unruh Act. See, e.g., Taormina v. Cal. Dep’t of

4 Corr., 946 F. Supp. 829, 834 (S.D. Cal. 1996); Wilkins-Jones v. County of Alameda,

5 2010 WL 4780291, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2010). The Court finds this authority

6 persuasive and holds that Sutter County Jail is not a business establishment under the

7 Unruh Act. Accordingly, Plaintiffs claim under the Unruh Act arising out of Decedent’s

8 treatment at Sutter County Jail fails.

9

Plaintiffs nonetheless correctly argue that SYMHS is subject to the Unruh Act

10 because it is a public health facility. Numerous courts have considered medical facilities

11 to be business facilities. See, e.g., North Coast Women’s Care Med. Group, Inc. v. San

12 Diego County Superior Court, 44 Cal. 4th 1145, 1153 (2008) (“A medical group providing

13 medical services to the public has been held to be a business establishment for

14 purposes of the [Unruh] Act.”) (hereafter, “North Coast”); Washington v. Blampin, 226

15 Cal. App. 2d 604 (Cal. App. 1964) (“There is nothing novel in referring to the practice of

16 medicine as a business.”). Defendants contend that the case Plaintiffs rely on, North

17 Coast, is distinguishable because it concerns a private medical group and SYMHS is a

18 public medical facility. This argument is unpersuasive because the Unruh Act prohibits

19 discrimination in places of public accommodation and covers “all business

20 establishments of every kind whatsoever.” Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club,

21 10 Cal. 4th 594, 599-615 (1995); Isbister, 40 Cal. 3d at 75. This Court therefore now

22 holds that a public medical facility is a “business establishment” for purposes of the

23 Unruh Act. See Isbister, 40 Cal. 3d at 75.

24

That being said, the Unruh Act provides that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of

25 this state are free and equal, and...are entitled to the full and equal accommodations,

26 advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind

27 whatsoever.” Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b).

28 /// 23

1 The purpose of the Unruh Act “is to compel a recognition of the equality of citizens in the

2 right to the peculiar service afforded” by the entities covered by the acts. Marina Point,

3 Ltd. v. Wolfson, 30 Cal. 3d 721, 738 (1982) (quoting Piluso v. Spencer, 36 Cal. App.

4 416, 419 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918)). In addition, the Unruh Civil Rights Act protects only

5 against intentional discrimination. Pack v. Fort Washington II, 689 F. Supp. 2d 1237,

6 1249 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Nowhere in Plaintiffs’ TAC do they adequately suggest SYMHS

7 engaged in intentional discrimination again Decedent, as prohibited by Cal. Civ. Code

8 § 51(b). Thus, Plaintiffs do not adequately allege SYMHS discriminated against

9 Decedent. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs cannot establish that Sutter County Jail is a

10 “business establishment,” or that SYMHS intentionally discriminated against Decedent,

11 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Unruh Act claim is GRANTED with leave to

12 amend.

13

14

G. Plaintiffs’ seventh claim for relief for professional negligence/medical

malpractice. 15

16

17

Plaintiffs allege Zil and Barnett were negligent in their failure to properly assess

18 and treat Decedent’s serious mental illness, to prescribe necessary psychiatric

19 medication, to ensure compliance with that medication, and to ensure proper treatment.

20 Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant Barnett was negligent in discharging Decedent

21 from SYMHS to Sutter County Jail in early April 2010.

22

These Defendants argue to the contrary that they are immune from liability under

23 California Government Code §§ 855.6 and 855.8. Section 855.6 shields a public

24 employee from liability “for injury caused by the failure to make a[n] examination, or to

25 make an adequate [] examination,...for the purpose of determining whether [a] person

26 has a...mental condition that would constitute a hazard to the health and safety of

27 himself or others.”

28 /// 24

1 Similarly, Section 855.8 provides that a public employee is not liable “for injury resulting

2 from diagnosing or failing to diagnose that a person is afflicted with mental illness [] or

3 from failing to prescribe for mental illness....” Cal. Gov. Code § 855.8(a). Defendants

4 argue that Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding their alleged failure to properly assess and

5 evaluate Decedent, as well as their alleged failure to prescribe appropriate medications,

6 fall squarely within Sections 855.6 and 855.8, and therefore, they are immune from

7 liability on that basis.

8

Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that the immunity granted under Section 855.6 does

9 not apply in “situation[s] where the defendant fails to provide medical care for a prisoner

10 in obvious need of such care,” as set forth in Lum v. City of San Joaquin, 756 F. Supp.

11 2d 1243 (E.D. Cal. 2010). Plaintiffs contend that Decedent was obviously in need of

12 medical care, pointing to Decedent’s serious mental illnesses and visible symptoms

13 stemming from those illnesses. They argue that Zil knew of these symptoms and yet he

14 wrongfully failed to order further evaluations or direct observation therapy. They further

15 allege that Barnett stated that Decedent needed at least two additional weeks of

16 hospitalization given his symptoms and instead inappropriately (and illegally) approved

17 Decedent’s transfer to the jail in a negligent manner. Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to

18 survive dismissal with respect to claims arising out of Zil’s alleged failure to properly

19 evaluate Decedent or prescribe medication for Decedent’s mental condition and

20 Barnett’s failure to properly evaluate Decedent or prescribe medications and negligent

21 discharge. Moreover, determining whether or not Decedent’s illnesses and symptoms

22 made it “obvious” to Defendants Zil and Barnett that Decedent was suicidal requires a

23 heavy fact-finding process, which is best left to a jury. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion

24 to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ professional negligence/medical malpractice claim is DENIED.

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28 /// 25

1

H. Plaintiffs’ eighth claim for relief for negligence/negligence per se

(against Defendants Barnett and Fliehman).

2

3

4

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Barnett and Fliehman acted negligently and

5 improperly, breached their respective duties, and as a direct and proximate result,

6 Decedent and Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages. Accordingly to Plaintiffs, as

7 already stated, Barnett was responsible for completing multiple psychiatric evaluations of

8 Decedent, as well as for planning his treatment and placement. In fact, Barnett allegedly

9 ordered the involuntary emergency psychiatric hospitalization of Decedent for at least 72

10 hours of treatment pursuant to Section 5150, after which he determined that Decedent

11 likely required two weeks of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization. Yet, Barnett

12 nonetheless discharged Decedent from the psychiatric hospital after only 24 hours, in

13 violation of Section 5152. In opposition, Defendants argue that, despite these facts,

14 Plaintiffs do not adequately allege Decedent was placed on an involuntary 72-hour hold

15 because a family member voluntarily turned him over to SYMHS so Section 5152 should

16 not apply. In addition, according to Defendants, the transfer did not cause Decedent’s

17 later death, and Section 5152 was not designed to prevent this later-occurring suicide.

18

As to Fliehman, Plaintiffs allege he violated Section 5150 when he booked

19 Decedent in the Sutter County Jail and placed him in a general population single cell

20 “with no direct observation for safety, although he knew or should have known that

21 [Decedent] required at least two (2) weeks of additional involuntary psychiatric

22 hospitalization given his psychotic condition and inability to provide for his own needs.”

23 TAC, ¶¶ 6-7 (emphasis in original). In opposition here, however, Defendants argue that

24 the booking at the jail was pursuant to the outstanding warrant, not Section 5150.

25 Defendants further argue that the transfer did not cause Decedent’s later death and that

26 Section 5150 was not designed to prevent this later-occurring suicide.

27 ///

28 /// 26

1

To allege a sufficient claim for negligence per se, Plaintiffs must identify a specific

2 statute, ordinance, or regulation in support of their claim. See Cal. Evid. Code § 669(a)

3 (“The failure of a person to exercise due care is presumed if: (1) He violated a statute,

4 ordinance, or regulation of a public entity; (2) The violation proximately caused death or

5 injury to a person or property; (3) The death or injury resulted from an occurrence of the

6 nature which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and (4) The

7 person suffering the death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of

8 persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted.”);

9 accord Lorbeer v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 958 F.2d 377 (9th Cir. 1992) (finding a

10 plaintiff’s negligence per se claim failed “because he [did] not identif[y] a specific,

11 relevant statutory violation...”). In light of the above arguments, the Court finds that

12 Plaintiffs adequately allege facts that Barnett violated Section 5152 by allegedly

13 discharging Decedent before the required 72-hour time and before finding that Decedent

14 no longer needed treatment. Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiffs adequately allege

15 facts that Fliehman violated Section 5150 when he purportedly knowingly placed

16 Decedent into an unapproved facility incapable of providing adequate support.

17 Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim for negligence per se is

18 DENIED.

19

20

I. Plaintiffs’ ninth claim for relief for failure to furnish/summon medical

care (against Defendants Little, Calapini, Fliehman, R.C., Mullin and

21

McGinnis).

22

23

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Little, Calapini, Fliehman, R.C., Mullin, and

24 McGinnis knew, or had reason to know, that Decedent was in need of immediate

25 medical and mental health care, yet they failed to take action to summon or provide care,

26 resulting in Decedent’s death, thereby violating California Government Code §§ 844.6

27 and 845.6.

28 /// 27

1 Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants failed to timely respond to Decedent’s “psychotic

2 episode” when “he engaged in numerous acts of self-harm before hanging himself....”

3 TAC, ¶ 205. Defendants nonetheless argue that Plaintiffs do not allege that these

4 Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge that Decedent was in need of

5 immediate medical care.

6

A claim for failure to furnish medical care is based on a violation of California

7 Government Code § 845.6, which states in pertinent part:

8

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for injury proximately

caused by the failure of the employee to furnish or obtain medical care for

9

a prisoner in his custody; but... a public employee, and the public entity

where the employee is acting within the scope of his employment, is liable

10

if the employee knows or has reason to know that the prisoner is in need

of immediate medical care and he fails to take reasonable action to

11

summon such medical care...

12 Plaintiffs allege that Little “observed [Decedent] banging himself against his cell door,

13 yelling about or at people who did not exist, describing various hallucinations, and

14 refusing his psychiatric medication.” TAC, ¶ 114. Plaintiffs also allege that Officer

15 Calapini had significant interaction with Decedent in April 2010 and that he “observed

16 [Decedent] engaging in acts of self-harm in his cell, having delusions and hallucinations,

17 and refusing his psychiatric medication.” Id., ¶ 115. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that

18 Fliehman was in contact with Decedent at the time he was placed and booked in the

19 Sutter County Jail, and that Fliehman was on notice of Decedent’s psychotic condition

20 and need for emergency treatment. Plaintiffs further contend that Defendant R.C. “was

21 informed on or about April 24, 2010 that [Decedent’s] condition had deteriorated to an

22 alarming level; that he was unstable and talking to himself and to inanimate objects; and

23 that he was refusing his medications.” Id., ¶ 116. They also allege that R.C. observed

24 and documented that Decedent “was experiencing delusions and hallucinations, and

25 was making alarming statements suggesting suicidal thoughts.” Id., ¶ 117.

26 ///

27 ///

28 /// 28

1 As to Nurses Mullin and McGinnis, Plaintiffs allege that they observed and recorded

2 Decedent’s refusal to take his psychiatric medications, observed him engaging in acts of

3 self-harm and having delusions and hallucinations. Id., ¶¶ 118-19.

4

The Court finds that Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts as to each Defendant to

5 support the claim that each had actual or constructive knowledge that Decedent was in

6 need of immediate medical care and that each failed to summon care. See, e.g., Jett,

7 439 F.3d 1091 (finding disputed issues of fact precluded summary judgment on the

8 inmate-plaintiff’s failure to summon medical care claim because a doctor ordered follow-

9 up visits for plaintiff following a fracture to his thumb and plaintiff filed repeated requests

10 to be seen by a health care provider, which were ignored by defendants); see also

11 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim

12 for failure to summon medical care is DENIED.

13

14

J. Plaintiffs’ tenth claim for relief for negligent supervision, training, hiring

and retention. 15

16

17

Plaintiffs allege Defendant County of Sutter was negligent in hiring, supervising,

18 training, and retaining employees and thus caused Decedent’s injuries. According to

19 Plaintiffs, Defendant’s failure resulted in the violation of three statutes that establish a

20 specific duty of care and/or basis for liability, including violation of Sections 5150 and

21 5152 and of California Government Code § 845.6. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’

22 claim must be dismissed because Defendant is immune under California Government

23 Code § 815 and because “California does not recognize a common law tort claim of

24 negligence against a public entity for the negligent ‘selection, training, retention,

25 supervision, and discipline’ of its employees.” Motion, 20:5-12. However, as stated in

26 the Court’s previous Order, pursuant to California Government Code § 815, a public

27 entity can be held directly liable in tort as specifically provided by statute. Caldwell v.

28 Montoya, 10 Cal. 4th 972, 980 (1995). 29

1

The Court must thus determine whether each of the alleged violated statutes

2 imposes a mandatory duty on the County of Sutter. Haggis v. City of Los Angeles, 22

3 Cal. 4th 490, 498 (2000) (“First and foremost, application of section 815.6 requires that

4 the enactment at issue be obligatory, rather than merely discretionary or permissive, in

5 its directions to the public entity; it must require, rather than merely authorize or permit,

6 that a particular action be taken or not taken.”). Courts apply the mandatory duty

7 element “rather strictly, and generally find a mandatory duty only if the enactment

8 imposes the duty and provides implementing measures or requires specific conduct.” All

9 Angels Preschool/Daycare v. County of Merced, 197 Cal. App. 4th 394, 402 n.8 (Cal.

10 App. 2011). The mandatory duty requires that the statute not be merely discretionary or

11 permissive, “it must require, rather than merely authorize or permit, that a particular

12 action be taken or not taken” by the public entity. Haggis, 22 Cal.4th at 498.

13

California Government Code § 845.6 imposes such a mandatory duty. It states

14 that a public entity “is liable if the employee knows or has reason to know that the

15 prisoner is in need of immediate medical care and he fails to take reasonable action to

16 summon such medical care.” Cal. Gov. Code § 845.6 (emphasis added). Section 5152

17 similarly requires that a person admitted pursuant to Section 5150 “shall be released

18 before 72 hours have elapsed only if the psychiatrist directly responsible for the person's

19 treatment believes, as a result of the psychiatrist's personal observations, that the

20 person no longer requires evaluation or treatment.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5152

21 (emphasis added). The Court determines that Section 5152, in its entirety, especially

22 given its use of the phrase “only if,” imposes a mandatory duty.

23

To the contrary, however, Section 5150 states that a person “may” be taken into

24 custody and placed in a facility for treatment and evaluation if, as a result of mental

25 disorder, he is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled. Use of

26 the word “may” is permissive, and, therefore, Section 5150 does not impose a

27 mandatory duty.

28 /// 30

1

Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ negligent supervision

2 cause of action as it pertains to Government Code § 845.6 and Section 5152 is DENIED.

3 The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ negligent supervision cause of action as it

4 pertains to Section 5150 is GRANTED with leave to amend.

5

6

K. Plaintiffs’ eleventh claim for relief for wrongful death.

7

8

Plaintiffs allege that Decedent’s injuries in this case are a result of the “wrongful

9 and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants” and, therefore, Defendants are

10 liable under California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60 for wrongful death. Defendants

11 argue that Plaintiffs fail to allege a duty or what duty was breached, and that Plaintiffs’

12 allegations regarding causation are conclusory.

13

In order to adequately allege a wrongful death claim, Plaintiffs must allege a

14 wrongful act or neglect on the part of one or more persons that caused the death of

15 another person. Garcia v. County of Fresno, 2005 WL 3143429, *6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21,

16 2005). For the reasons already stated, Plaintiffs meet this standard. Plaintiffs have

17 alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate that Defendants’ negligence caused Decedent’s

18 death. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ eleventh cause of action is

19 DENIED.

20

21

L. Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages.

22

23

Defendants’ move to strike Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages. Rule 12(f),

24 however, is the improper vehicle by which to attack damages allegations. Whittlestone,

25 Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 974-75 (9th Cir. 2010). Such attacks should

26 instead be made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Id. Accordingly, the Court now construes

27 Defendants’ instant Motion as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

28 /// 31

1

Defendants first attack Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages against the medical

2 Defendants (Zil, Barnett, Mullin, and McGinnis) because, prior to initiating this litigation,

3 Plaintiffs did not petition the Court in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure

4 § 425.13. To adequately plead a prayer for punitive damages against medical providers

5 under California state law, Plaintiffs must petition the court for punitive damages

6 pursuant to Section 425.13. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.13; Thomas v. Hickman, 2006

7 WL 2868967, at *39-41 (E.D.Ca., Oct. 6, 2006). Defendants correctly point out that

8 Plaintiffs have neither requested nor obtained an order from the Court allowing for

9 recovery of punitive damages against medical defendants for the state claims in

10 accordance with Section 425.13. Id. Thus, Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages

11 against medical defendants (i.e., Zil, Barnett, Mullins, and McGinnis) for state claims is

12 dismissed with leave to amend.

13

The Court must still nonetheless address Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages

14 for state claims against non-medical Defendants and for federal claims against all

15 Defendants. Punitive damages are appropriate in an action brought under 42 U.S.C.

16 § 1983. Punitive damages are available “‘when the defendant's conduct is shown to be

17 motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to

18 the federally protected rights of others.’” Kennedy v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 901 F.2d

19 702, 707 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1971)). Under

20 California law, “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant

21 has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual

22 damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the

23 defendant.” Cal. Civil Code § 3294(a). Malice is defined as despicable conduct done

24 with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others and oppression is

25 defined as despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in

26 conscious disregard of that person’s rights. Id., § 3294(c).

27

This Court has already determined that Defendants’ actions shock the

28 conscience. Therefore, Plaintiffs have also adequately alleged Defendants’ “conduct 32

1 is…motivated by evil motive or intent” and that Defendants’ acts were malicious and

2 oppressive. Smith, 461 U.S. at 56; Cal. Civil Code § 3294. Accordingly, Defendants’

3 Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Punitive Damages, construed as a motion to

4 dismiss, as it relates to Plaintiffs’ federal claims against the Individual Defendants and to

5 state claims against Defendants’ Bidwell, Facility Manager, Parker, Samson, Little,

6 Calapini, R.C. and Fliehman is DENIED.

7

8

M. Defendants’ Motion for More Definite Statement.

9

10

Defendants’ Motion for More Definite Statement is DENIED. Plaintiffs have

11 provided sufficient facts to survive a 12(e) motion because the pleading is not so vague

12 or ambiguous that Defendants cannot frame a responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).

13

14

CONCLUSION

15

16

For the reasons stated above, County Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 36) is

17 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent with the foregoing. Not later than

18 twenty (20) days following the date this Memorandum and Order is electronically filed,

19 Plaintiffs may (but are not required to) file an amended complaint on those issues as to

20 which the motion to dismiss was granted.. If no amended complaint is filed within said

21 twenty (20) day period, without further notice to the parties, the causes of action

22 dismissed by virtue of this Memorandum and Order will be dismissed with prejudice.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 Dated: August 30, 2012 25 26 27

__________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28 33

 
 Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 1 of 30

[1230779-2]

1 MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891

ERNEST GALVAN – 196065

2 KATHRYN G. MANTOAN – 239649

AARON J. FISCHER – 247391

3 JENNIFER L. STARK – 267062

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

4 315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor

San Francisco, California 94104-1823

5 Telephone: (415) 433-6830

Facsimile: (415) 433-7104

6 Email:

mbien@rbgg.com

egalvan@rbgg.com

7

kmantoan@rbgg.com

afischer@rbgg.com

8

jstark@rbgg.com

9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

13 Estate of RODNEY LOUIS BOCK, deceased, by and through CYNDIE DENNY BOCK, as
14 Administrator; KIMBERLY BOCK; KELLIE BOCK; HILLARY BOCK; MORGEN BOCK;
15 LAURA LYNN BOCK; and Estate of ROBERT BOCK,
16 Plaintiffs,
17 v.
18 COUNTY OF SUTTER; COUNTY OF YUBA;
19 J. PAUL PARKER, Sutter County Sheriff’s Department Sheriff; LEWIS MCELFRESH,
20 Sutter County Jail Division Commander; NORMAN BIDWELL, Sutter County Jail
21 Corrections Lieutenant; JOHN S. ZIL; CHRISTOPHER BARNETT; BOBBY JOE
22 LITTLE; DAVID CALAPINI; SHAUN FLIEHMAN; RAINBOW CRANE; KATY
23 MULLIN; DONICE MCGINNIS; BALJINDER RAI; and Does I through XL, inclusive,
24 Defendants.
25

Case No. 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF FILING OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE CARE AND TO AVOID PREVENTABLE DEATHS AT SUTTER COUNTY JAIL

26

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF FILING OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE CARE AND TO AVOID PREVENTABLE DEATHS AT SUTTER COUNTY JAIL

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 2 of 30

[1230779-2]

1

On May 20, 2014, the parties reached a settlement agreement at a Settlement

2 Conference before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. Pursuant to that

3 agreement, Plaintiffs have agreed to assemble written recommendations for changes to

4 improve the Sutter County Jail’s medical and mental health system, based on investigation

5 and discovery that has been completed. Counsel for Defendants has agreed to provide

6 Plaintiffs’ recommendations to County officials, and the County has agreed to give them

7 serious consideration. See 5/20/14 Hr’g Tr. at 4:22-5:1.

8

Plaintiffs attach as Exhibit A their Recommendations to Improve Care and to

9 Avoid Preventable Deaths at Sutter County Jail, which was provided to counsel for

10 Defendants on July 2, 2014.

11

12 DATED: July 2, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

13

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

14

By: /s/ Aaron J. Fischer

15

Aaron J. Fischer

16

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
1
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF FILING OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE CARE AND TO AVOID PREVENTABLE DEATHS AT SUTTER COUNTY JAIL

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 3 of 30
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 4 of 30
315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor San Francisco, California 94104-1823 T: (415) 433-6830 ▪ F: (415) 433-7104 www.rbgg.com Aaron J. Fischer Email: afischer@rbgg.com

July 2, 2014

Sheriff J. Paul Parker Sutter County Sheriff’s Office 1077 Civic Center Blvd. Yuba City, CA 95993 c/o John Whitefleet (via email) Counsel for County of Sutter

Dr. Lou Anne Cummings, Health Officer Sutter County Public Health Division 1445 Veterans Memorial Circle Yuba City, CA 95993 c/o John Whitefleet (via email) Counsel for County of Sutter

Re: Recommendations to Improve Care and to Avoid Preventable Deaths at Sutter County Jail Bock v. County of Sutter, Case No. 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.) Prasad v. County of Sutter, Case No. 2:12-cv-00592-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.) Our File Nos. 1137-1, 1175-1

Dear Sheriff Parker and Dr. Cummings:
We are counsel in two recently-settled lawsuits brought against the County of Sutter, Bock v. County of Sutter (Case No. 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN) and Prasad v. County of Sutter (Case No. 2:12-cv-00592-TLN-CKD). Extensive discovery was done in the two cases. As part of the settlement agreement in the Bock case, the parties agreed that our office would assemble recommendations for changes to improve the Sutter County Jail’s medical and mental health system. We agreed to provide those recommendations to defense counsel, who in turn has agreed to provide them to you. We understand that the County of Sutter has agreed to give serious consideration to these recommendations. See Appendix A, 5/20/14 Court Hearing Tr. at 4:22-5:1.
In assembling these recommendations, our office has obtained input from some of the nation’s most distinguished experts on prison and jail medical and mental health care, who have completed careful reviews of the County’s system and the circumstances of recent Sutter County Jail inmate deaths.1 In the last few years, several inmates have died

1 These experts include: Pablo Stewart, M.D., a psychiatrist who has served as a federal court-appointed monitor of psychiatric care in jails and prisons, and has been cited by the United States Supreme Court, see Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910, 1933 n.6, (footnote continued)

[1219062-5]

SheriCffaJs.eP2a:u1l1P-cavrk-0e0r 536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 5 of 30 Dr. Lou Anne Cummings July 2, 2014 Page 2
at Sutter County Jail, including Rodney Bock (April 2010), Nathan Prasad (January 2011), Erica Ness (September 2011), and Nelson Figueira-Silva (March 2013).
The Sutter County Grand Jury has repeatedly identified serious deficiencies in the jail’s medical and mental health care system, both generally and as related to specific deaths. See, e.g., Final Report of the 2007-2008 Sutter County Grand Jury (July 1, 2008) at 134; Final Report of the 2010-2011 Sutter County Grand Jury (July 13, 2011) at 8-11; Final Report of the 2011-2012 Sutter County Grand Jury re: Sutter County Jail Death (Apr. 9, 2012); Final Report of the 2011-2012 Sutter County Grand Jury (July 29, 2012) at 49-50; Final Report of the 2012-2013 Sutter County Grand Jury (July 12, 2013) at 1-5. See also May 11, 2009 Memorandum from Sutter County Health Officer to Sutter County Board of Supervisors, available at http://www.co.sutter.ca.us/agenda/bos/2009/3097, Item No. 22 (identifying needs with respect to suicide prevention, mental health treatment, and 24/7 nursing coverage).
There are several steps that the County of Sutter can and should take right away to avoid future tragedies similar to those suffered by Mr. Bock, Mr. Prasad, Ms. Ness, Mr. Figueira-Silva, and the loved ones who survive them. Some of our recommended changes require the provision of additional resources, but are nonetheless essential to prevent future deaths and the costly lawsuits that may follow. Other recommended changes are remarkably inexpensive and entail simple, common-sense steps that can save lives.2 We provide our recommendations below.
1935 (2011); Lindsay Hayes, Project Director of the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives, a nationally recognized expert in the field of suicide prevention within jails, prisons, and juvenile facilities who has served as a federal court-appointed monitor and suicide prevention consultant to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division; and Robert L. Cohen, M.D., an expert in prison health care (see Parsons v. Ryan, Case No. 12-16396, ___ F.3d __, 2014 WL 2523682, at *6 (9th Cir. June 5, 2014)) who has served as court-appointed monitor in cases regarding the provision of medical care in prisons and jails in cases in throughout the country, and served as a member of the Board of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care for seventeen years.
2 Attached as Appendix B is Lindsay Hayes’ “Guide to Developing and Revising Suicide Prevention Protocols within Jails and Prisons,” which offers further detail and guidance regarding the implementation of an adequate suicide prevention program.
[1219062-5]

SheriCffaJs.eP2a:u1l1P-cavrk-0e0r 536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 6 of 30 Dr. Lou Anne Cummings July 2, 2014 Page 3
Recommendations to Improve Care and Avoid Preventable Deaths at Sutter County Jail
1. Update Jail Intake Procedures to Identify Prisoners with Serious Psychiatric or Medical Conditions. The intake screening process for newly booked prisoners is antiquated and grossly inadequate. Without adequate screening, prisoners at risk are all too likely to be missed, with unnecessary and tragic outcomes. If done appropriately, screening can be extremely effective in identifying inmates with serious mental illness or medical problems. The jail’s screening questions need to be updated and should include meaningful questions regarding an inmate’s mental illness and risk for suicide. See, e.g., Appendix B at 2-3. Medical intake screening should be designed to identify medical problems that may require urgent or emergent evaluation by a physician, including but not limited to diabetes, hypertension, epilepsy, asthma, HIV infection, and heart disease.
Screening of inmates needs to be done in a confidential setting, not in the central booking area where other new inmates are just a few feet away. Medical or mental health personnel should conduct the screenings, not custody staff. If licensed vocational nurses (“LVNs”)—or any other staff not licensed to diagnose or treat medical or mental illnesses—conduct the screenings, they must be trained to urgently or emergently refer patients with chronic illnesses who are receiving medications or those who have questionable vital signs to the facility physician or mid-level provider, and to obtain immediate telephone consultation for inmate-patients as needed.
Medical intake screening should also include enhanced screening for alcohol and drug withdrawal, both common and extremely serious conditions for men and women entering jail. Patients screened who are found to be at risk for withdrawal should receive immediate medical evaluation and require close monitoring or transfer to a facility equipped for treatment of these conditions.
2. Provide 24/7 Medical Coverage at Sutter County Jail to Ensure Timely Access to Medical Care. During the period from 12:00 midnight to 4:30 a.m. each day, there are no medical staff on site at the jail, and no physicians on call. It was during this four-and-a-half-hour overnight period on January 28, 2011 that the infection Mr. Prasad had developed took a serious turn for the worse. In these critical hours, Mr. Prasad was coughing up blood and sweating profusely, and his vital signs were plummeting. With no medical staff available, Mr. Prasad’s condition went from likely treatable to fatal.
This issue—and Sutter County’s knowledge of the problem—dates back several years, including a 2007-2008 grand jury report that recommended 24/7 medical staffing at the jail. Sheriff Parker, Jail Commander David Samson, and Lieutenant Norman
[1219062-5]

SheriCffaJs.eP2a:u1l1P-cavrk-0e0r 536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 7 of 30 Dr. Lou Anne Cummings July 2, 2014 Page 4
Bidwell have all stated, including in sworn testimony, that they believe that the jail needs to have round-the-clock medical staff. Even the County’s one-time jail nurse manager made repeated requests for 24/7 medical staffing, but was told that there was simply “not money in the budget.” By ignoring these repeated requests and leaving inmates without access to medical care for over one-sixth of every day, the County creates a predictable risk of serious and even lethal consequences for inmates.
To date, the County has not agreed to provide funding for this needed continuous coverage. We recommend that the County reconsider this decision; in the long run, 24/7 on-site medical coverage will save both lives and money. If on-site coverage for any period is provided exclusively by personnel not licensed to diagnose medical conditions (e.g., LVNs), those personnel must have specific and concrete guidance about the signs, symptoms and complaints that should trigger an immediate referral to a higher-level provider and/or the emergency room.
3. Increase Licensed Mental Health Staffing at Sutter County Jail to Ensure Timely Access to Mental Health Care. Other than a psychiatrist (Dr. John Zil) who is on-site for no more than four hours per week, the Sutter County Jail currently does not staff any qualified, licensed mental health professionals. The “crisis counselors” who work at the jail are required to have little more than a valid driver’s license. A minimally adequate standard of care requires that a qualified mental health professional be involved in any decision to place an inmate on suicide precautions, to discharge inmates from suicide precautions, and to make other significant treatment decisions related to mental health care.3
Shockingly, Mr. Bock went directly from round-the-clock hospital-level psychiatric care at the County’s Psychiatric Health Facility to essentially no care at all at the jail. Dr. Zil saw Mr. Bock only one time during his month-long detention, and not once in the approximately 19 days preceding his suicide. Consequently, the jail did not provide necessary and potentially life-saving psychiatric attention to Mr. Bock in those critical days. The jail must increase its staffing of qualified, licensed mental health
3Qualified mental health professionals include psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric social workers, psychiatric nurses, and others who by virtue of their education, credentials, and experience are permitted by law to evaluate and care for the mental health needs of patients.
[1219062-5]

SheriCffaJs.eP2a:u1l1P-cavrk-0e0r 536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 8 of 30 Dr. Lou Anne Cummings July 2, 2014 Page 5
professionals. Those providers need to be notified of and follow up with inmates showing signs of serious mental illness. Otherwise, more deaths are inevitable.
4. Ensure Inmate Treatment Planning and Adequate Communication Between Sutter County Jail Custody Staff, Medical Staff, and Mental Health Providers. Section 1210 of Title 15 requires that, for every inmate treated for a mental illness or major medical problem in a jail, “treatment staff shall develop a written [individualized] treatment plan” and “custody staff shall be informed of the treatment plan when necessary, to ensure coordination and cooperation in the ongoing care of the inmate.” We were troubled to discover that inmates at Sutter County Jail, including Mr. Bock and Mr. Prasad, do not receive the treatment plans required by state law. Meanwhile, custody staff repeatedly testified that they never receive information about inmates’ medical and mental health needs, including relevant hospital discharge instructions, even though custody officers are the sole personnel in the inmate housing units able to observe and respond to inmate health needs for much of each day.
HIPAA specifically authorizes the sharing of protected inmate health information with correctional staff when needed to protect “the health and safety of such individual[,] … other inmates[,]” or “the officers or employees of or others at the correctional institution.” 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(k)(5). Policies, procedures, and practices at Sutter County Jail must be modified to ensure that inmates receive written individualized treatment plans and that staff—including custody staff—have the information they need to implement those plans. The risk to inmates’ health and safety absent adequate treatment planning and cross-discipline communication is simply too great.
5. Transfer Sutter County Jail Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness to a Hospital Setting. Mr. Bock committed suicide after being moved directly from the County’s inpatient psychiatric facility (on a Section 5150 involuntary psychiatric admission) to the jail. Sutter County Jail does not have the licensing, staffing, or resources to safely house or treat prisoners with serious mental illness. Your County’s citizens who require Section 5150 psychiatric hospitalization, or have been found incompetent to stand trial by reason of mental illness, or otherwise suffer from serious mental illness should not be admitted to or housed at the jail. As the federal judge in the Bock case found, the superior court judge’s order for Mr. Bock to be transferred to a state psychiatric hospital “could have saved his life” if only the County had followed it.
6. Do Not Place Prisoners with Mental Illness in the Jail’s Solitary Confinement Cells. Sutter County Jail has a dangerous, longstanding policy and practice to house inmates with mental illness in solitary confinement, meaning that they are kept in their cell for 23 hours per day and have no normal social contact with others
[1219062-5]

SheriCffaJs.eP2a:u1l1P-cavrk-0e0r 536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 9 of 30 Dr. Lou Anne Cummings July 2, 2014 Page 6
outside of their cell. There is now widespread recognition of the substantial risk of harm to inmates with mental illness housed in such a setting. See, e.g., National Research Council-National Academy of Sciences, The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences (2014) at 186-188; American Psychiatric Association Position Statement on Segregation of Prisoners with Mental illness (2012) (“[P]rolonged segregation of adult inmates with serious mental illness, with rare exceptions, should be avoided due to the potential for harm to such inmates.”)
Sutter County Jail staff members themselves recognize that inmates with mental illness (like Rodney Bock) should not be housed in isolation units. Captain Lewis McElfresh, who served as Jail Division Commander from 2006-2010, testified that “[t]he jail, A-Pod [an isolation unit], is not a place for mental health patients.” A sheriff’s deputy working in the isolation units (A- and B-pods) expressed to our experts during a recent jail tour that prisoners with mental illness “shouldn’t be here, in my opinion.”
Moreover, many of these cells are themselves unsafe and pose undue risks to the safety of prisoners with mental illness. For example, the County placed Mr. Bock in a single-man cell in the solitary confinement A-Pod unit that was on the second floor and out of custody staff’s and surveillance camera’s line-of-sight. Mr. Bock’s cell also was not protrusion-free, meaning that there were attachment points for an inmate to attach a suicide noose (as Mr. Bock did). Such hazards must be identified and eliminated in order to prevent predictable harm.
Prisoners with mental illness should be housed and clustered in a non-isolation unit that provides for adequate supervision, access to treatment, out-of-cell time, and suicide-resistant features. Prisoners with mental illness should be promptly moved to hospital-level care when clinically indicated.
7. Provide Suicide Prevention Training for Both Custody and NonCustody Staff. Dr. Zil testified that he used to provide suicide prevention training to custody staff at Sutter County Jail annually, but this training was ended many years ago. Sound correctional practice requires all staff—both custody staff and non-custody staff (i.e., nursing)—to receive detailed live training, at least annually, on recognizing and responding to inmate suicide risks, as well as emergency response procedures. See, e.g., Appendix B at 1.
8. Implement a Method for Inmates’ Family Members to Convey Concerns about Their Loved Ones. A major failure surrounding Mr. Bock’s death was that his daughters, who visited him weekly and saw his condition getting worse and worse, had no idea if or how they could communicate their concerns about their father to
[1219062-5]

SherCifaf sJe. P2a:1u1l -Pcavr-k0e0r536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 10 of 30 Dr. Lou Anne Cummings July 2, 2014 Page 7
jail staff. The jail’s crisis counselor testified that there is no procedure for family members to alert jail officials about serious concerns regarding inmates’ physical and mental health.
We recommend that you follow the lead of El Dorado, Santa Clara, and at least a dozen other California counties that have systems in place—including posted and online guidance, contact information, and forms—for family members to communicate information about an inmate’s mental health or medical needs, histories, and medications to jail staff. (Forms already in use are available at www.namicalifornia.org/criminaljustice.php?page=jail-resources&lang=eng.) This is a simple, low-cost way to help ensure that prisoners with serious illness get the care they need while in custody.
9. Improve Communication Between Sutter-Yuba Mental Health Services and Sutter County Jail. Sutter-Yuba Mental Health Services (SYMHS) is the designated provider of psychiatric services at the jail. Many inmates, like Rodney Bock, have been treated for mental illness at SYMHS’s Psychiatric Health Facility (PHF) at some point prior to their jail detention. Yet Dr. Christopher Barnett—the clinical director of SYMHS’s PHF and psychiatric emergency services—testified that he had no idea what mental health services are provided at the jail, where prisoners with mental illness may be housed, or what policies and procedures exist for treating prisoners with mental illness. It is deeply troubling that, beyond Dr. Zil and the handful of SYMHS crisis counselors at Sutter County Jail, SYMHS staff and leadership are entirely disconnected from the mental health services at the jail. Better communication is essential.
All SYMHS staff should be trained on what services are available to SYMHS patients housed at the jail. Communication between the jail and SYMHS’s community facilities regarding mental health histories, discharge summaries, and treatment plans for inmates with mental illness must be improved, to ensure adequate continuity of care. Proper written and telephone communication between clinical staff is necessary so that inmates with known mental illness do not fall through the cracks as Mr. Bock did.
10. Fix the Jail’s Broken Death Review Process. The County of Sutter never completed a full investigation or death review for the deaths of Mr. Bock and Mr. Prasad. Dr. Zil testified that he was informed by the County’s director of mental health that attorneys had directed the County not to conduct any death review for Mr. Bock. Similarly, Dr. Cummings directed medical staff not to discuss Mr. Prasad’s case, and did not share her personal post-mortem chart review for Mr. Prasad with anyone. These failures violate Sutter County’s own Jail Policy Manual, as well as Section 1046 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations.
[1219062-5]

SherCifaf sJe. P2a:1u1l -Pcavr-k0e0r536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 11 of 30 Dr. Lou Anne Cummings July 2, 2014 Page 8
Sound correctional practice requires a mortality-morbidity review for every death, suicide, or serious suicide attempt. This allows for a critical inquiry into the incident, facility procedures, training practices, available medical and mental health services, and the possible need for system improvements to avoid similar outcomes in the future.
11. Ensure Meaningful Training and Accountability to Maintain a Competent, Qualified, and Effective Staff. Actions of County personnel in both the Prasad and Bock deaths reveal a troubling lack of training and appropriate supervision. Likewise, the County’s post-incident discipline and follow-up were horribly deficient. Adequate training (at the front end) and discipline (at the back end) are essential ingredients of a minimally adequate jail health care system. Written policies, however improved, are not enough on their own.
By way of example: on the last morning of Mr. Prasad’s life, he was displaying alarming medical symptoms, yet the vocational nurse on duty confined him to a jail office for hours rather than summoning emergency care. Following Mr. Prasad’s death, her supervisor told her that she “did a good job and handled it well” and that there was “nothing more [she] could have done.” Neither of these staff members was ever disciplined or counseled by the County. Yet their respective licensing boards have moved to revoke both of their licenses for the “incompetence” and “unprofessional conduct” they displayed in failing to address Mr. Prasad’s medical emergency. See http://www.bvnpt.ca.gov/public/vn104567.pdf; http://rn.ca.gov/public/rn530916.pdf.
In Mr. Bock’s case, the psychiatrist at SYMHS charged with caring for Mr. Bock appears to have violated state law by approving Mr. Bock’s discharge from a Section 5150 hospitalization and transfer to the jail while Mr. Bock was still psychotic, delusional, and in need of hospital-level care. See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5152. Just days before his death, a jail crisis counselor documented that Mr. Bock was unstable, refusing medication, delusional, and having auditory hallucinations, but did not convey this information to anyone. Neither employee was counseled, disciplined, or held accountable by the County in any way.
The County’s failure to properly train or supervise these and other employees involved in the deaths of Mr. Prasad and Mr. Bock—or to counsel, discipline, or otherwise address their conduct—is deeply problematic. The County must implement appropriate measures to ensure that staff understand and implement appropriate policies and practices. The County must also hold staff accountable when their conduct contributes to a serious injury or death at the jail—including, at a minimum, re-training and re-evaluating their skill sets to ensure that they meet the minimum standards to be entrusted with the lives of inmates under their care.
[1219062-5]

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 12 of 30
SheriffJ. Paul Parker Dr. Lou Anne Cummings 7uly 2,2014 Page 9

We trust that the County will make good on its commitment before thejudge who oversaw the Bock settlement to seriously consider these proposals. We would be happy to discuss these recommendations or to facilitate communications with the experts whose analyses informed them. On behalfofour clients, we look forward to seeing improved conditions at Sutter County Jail, and to helping the County fulfill its constitutional,legal, and moral responsibility to provide for the care and safety ofthose in its custody.
Sincerely,

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
Qom.~. ~,,a.~,....
Aaron J. Fischer

~ ~

~ •'

Kathryn G. Mantoan

AJF/KGM:cg

Enclosures: Appendiz A:5/24/14 Hearing Transcript,Bock v. County ofSutter; Appendix B:Lindsay Hayes,Guide to Developing and Revising Suicide Prevention Protocols with Jails and Prisons

cc: Stan Cleveland,Chairman,County ofSutter Board ofSupervisors, c%John Whitefleet, Counselfor County ofSutter(via email)

~,z,sosz-~

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 13 of 30
APPENDIX A

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 14 of 30

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

--o0o--

4 CYNDIE DENNY BOCK, et al.,

) Case No. 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN

)

5

Plaintiffs, ) Sacramento, California

) Tuesday, May 20, 2014

6

vs.

) 12:23 P.M.

)

7 COUNTY OF SUTTER, et al.,

) Hearing re: further

) settlement conference.

8

Defendants. )

)

9

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

10

BEFORE THE HONORABLE EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11

APPEARANCES:

12

For Plaintiff:

MICHAEL BIEN

13

AARON J. FISCHER

Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld

14

315 Montgomery Street, 10th Flr.

San Francisco, CA 94104

15

(415) 433-6830

16 For Defendant: 17 18

JOHN R. WHITEFLEET Porter Scott, APC 350 University Avenue, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95823 (916) 929-1481

19 Court Recorder: 20 21

(UNMONITORED) U.S. District Court 501 "I" Street, Suite 4-200 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 930-4072

22 Transcription Service: 23 24

Petrilla Reporting & Transcription
5002 - 61st Street Sacramento, CA 95820 (916) 455-3887

25 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; transcript produced by transcription service.

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 15 of 30 1

1

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2014, 12:23 P.M.

2

3

(Call to order of the Court.)

4

THE CLERK: Calling Civil Case 11-00536-MCE, Bock, et

5 al v. County of Sutter, et al. Your Honor, this is on calendar

6 for a further settlement conference.

7

THE COURT: All right. Let's go ahead and state

8 everybody's appearance on the record. For the plaintiffs?

9

MR. BIEN: Good morning, Your Honor. Michael Bien

10 and Aaron Fischer on behalf of the plaintiffs.

11

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bien, Mr. Fischer.

12

MR. WHITEFLEET: Good morning, Your Honor, or it's

13 close to afternoon. John Whitefleet for the defendants and

14 with me is Ken Miley of the Risk Management Authority.

15

THE COURT: All right. And I think you're right. It

16 is afternoon now.

17

All right. The record will reflect that we've been

18 in further settlement conference this morning. I believe this

19 is now the third conference that we've convened. Substantial

20 progress was made over the first two. We set a further

21 settlement conference for today's date and the morning has been

22 productive. We have -- we appear to have reached a full and

23 final settlement of this matter.

24

And counsel, I'm going to ask each of you to confirm

25 the terms of the settlement. Mr. Whitefleet, why don't we have

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 16 of 30 2

1 you recite your understanding of the terms of the settlement.

2

MR. WHITEFLEET: And thank you, Your Honor. My

3 understanding is defendant County has agreed to pay a sum total

4 of $800,000 subject to the approval of the CSAC EIA Committee,

5 and a signing of a standard settlement and release in exchange

6 for dismissal with prejudice.

7

THE COURT: All right. And that committee meets on

8 June 4, is that correct?

9

MR. WHITEFLEET: The next scheduled meeting is for

10 June 4th, correct.

11

THE COURT: All right. And it's your intention to

12 recommend to the committee that they approve this settlement in

13 the amount of $800,000?

14

MR. WHITEFLEET: Yes.

15

THE COURT: All right. Now, as to the -- we had some

16 discussion about recommended procedural changes and policy

17 changes. What's your understanding as to that?

18

MR. WHITEFLEET: Your Honor, if I may, I understand

19 that there have been implemented changes already performed. We

20 can offer a list of those, if you'd like.

21

THE COURT: Yes. Why don't we have those -- have

22 that list read.

23

MR. MILEY: Your Honor, this is Ken Miley. There's

24 seven items that the County has implemented to improve the

25 healthcare delivery system at the jail, and I'll go over them

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 17 of 30 3

1 one by one.

2

They are providing ASIST program training to all

3 current jail medical staff and this training will also be given

4 to all new staff. ASIST stands for Applied Suicide

5 Intervention Skills Training. It's a recognized program.

6

Secondly, they've hired a new medical director.

7

Third, they've updated the policies and procedures

8 and included that in all manuals giving priority to inmate

9 safety. An example of one of the policies and procedures that

10 they've changed and updated is when an inmate refuses

11 medication, after three days in a row notices are given to the

12 medical providers for appropriate intervention.

13

Number four, they've increased staff. They've hired

14 two registered nurses with ER experience, emergency room

15 experience. They've hired one public health nurse, and one

16 LVN, and these are all additions to staff.

17

They've also added an extra health nurse practitioner

18 as a cover position for vacations and off hours. They've

19 improved the sick call response time. And lastly, they've

20 trained staff on documentation for care of inmates in the

21 safety cells, sobering cells, and medical cells, and that's an

22 increase in training.

23

And those are the seven items that the County has

24 implemented. And they're also reviewing and looking at

25 additional ways to improve the system.

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 18 of 30 4

1

THE COURT: All right. Now, Mr. Bien -- well, first

2 of all, let me just have you confirm your understanding as to

3 the monetary part of the settlement.

4

MR. BIEN: Your Honor, we agree that the parties have

5 reached an agreement to -- the plaintiffs will accept a total

6 payment of $800,000 in return for dismissal with prejudice of

7 the lawsuit.

8

THE COURT: All right. Now, as to the procedural

9 changes and the policy changes the plaintiffs, in addition to

10 this list of seven items that Mr. Miley just read for the

11 record, in addition to that, the plaintiffs intend to submit

12 some sort of a written proposal with recommendations, is that

13 correct?

14

MR. BIEN: Yes, Your Honor, and defense counsel has

15 agreed that we -- if we provide such a writing to him, he will

16 provide it to the sheriff and the medical director, and we have

17 recommendations from our experts in this case, and a related

18 case, Prasad, which also involved a death at Sutter County Jail

19 in an applicable time period. We have various ideas and

20 recommendations for additional changes, and the County has

21 agreed to hear that from us.

22

THE COURT: All right. And Mr. Miley, Mr.

23 Whitefleet, it's your understanding that the County will

24 serious consider those proposals?

25

MR. WHITEFLEET: That's correct, Your Honor.

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 19 of 30 5

1

MR. MYELINI: That's correct, Your Honor.

2

MR. WHITEFLEET: And just as one point of

3 clarification, just so we can make sure everything is clear and

4 expressed. That the monetary amount of the resolution is of

5 all claims to all parties and requires all parties to bear

6 their own fees and costs.

7

MR. BIEN: Yes, Your Honor. We agree.

8

THE COURT: All right. It does then appear that we

9 do have a full and final settlement of the case. The -- I will

10 be entering what we refer to as the drop dead order. It's an

11 order that will vacate all dates in the case. It will vacate

12 the trial date, and any remaining due dates for filing of

13 documents, discovery, et cetera. And it will set a new

14 deadline, and that deadline will be the filing of the

15 dispositional document, that is the stipulation for dismissal

16 in this case.

17

Is 30 days enough time for that, or do you need more

18 than 30 days?

19

MR. WHITEFLEET: Just to ensure that we meet the

20 Court's set deadline, once it is set, we would prefer 45 days.

21

THE COURT: All right.

22

MR. BIEN: That's fine, Your Honor.

23

THE COURT: All right. Then we'll -- it will be a

24 45-day deadline then, assuming that the committee approves the

25 $800,000 settlement, and it sounds like that's likely to

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 20 of 30 6

1 happen. You anticipate that a check would issue within a few

2 weeks after that date, is that correct?

3

MR. WHITEFLEET: Yes, Your Honor.

4

THE COURT: All right. We do have a final

5 settlement.

6

I want to compliment counsel for both sides, or for

7 your diligence and also your patience. We've achieved a

8 settlement in a case where when we began the conference, I

9 didn't think a settlement would be possible. So my compliments

10 to each of you.

11

And to the family, I want to also commend you for

12 your patience. You've achieved not only what I tink is a very

13 reasonable and fair monetary settlement, but it's also had the

14 result of some important and significant changes that are being

15 made at the jail that are much needed. So my compliments to

16 you as well.

17

All right. Thank you.

18

MR. BIEN: Thank you, Your Honor.

19

MR. WHITEFLEET: Thank you, Your Honor.

20

(Whereupon the hearing in the above-entitled matter was

21 adjourned at 12:31 p.m.)

22

--o0o--

23

24

25

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 21 of 30 7

1

CERTIFICATE

2

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from

3 the electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-

4 entitled matter.

5

6

May 21, 2014

7 Patricia A. Petrilla, Transcriber

8 AAERT CERT*D-113

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 22 of 30
APPENDIX B

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 23 of 30
GUIDE TO DEVELOPING AND REVISING SUICIDE PREVENTION PROTOCOLS WITHIN JAILS AND PRISONS
Lindsay M. Hayes ©National Center on Institutions and Alternatives, 2013
All correctional facilities, regardless of size, should have a comprehensive suicide prevention program that addresses the following critical components.
Staff Training
The essential component to any suicide prevention program is properly trained staff, who form the backbone of any correctional facility. Very few suicides are actually prevented by mental health, medical or other professional staff because suicides are usually attempted in housing units, and often during late evening hours or on weekends when they are generally outside the purview of program staff. These incidents, therefore, must be thwarted by correctional staff who have been trained in suicide prevention and have developed an intuitive sense about suicidal inmates. Correctional staff are often the only personnel available 24 hours a day; thus, they form the front line of defense in preventing suicides.
All correctional, medical, and mental health personnel, as well as any staff who have regular contact with inmates, should receive eight (8) hours of initial suicide prevention training, followed by two (2) hours of refresher training each year. The initial training should include administrator/staff attitudes about suicide and how negative attitudes impede suicide prevention efforts, guiding principles to suicide prevention, inmate suicide research, why the environments of correctional facilities are conducive to suicidal behavior, potential predisposing factors to suicide, high-risk suicide periods, warning signs and symptoms, identifying suicidal inmates despite the denial of risk, components of the facility’s suicide prevention policy, and liability issues associated with inmate suicide. The two-hour refresher training should include a review of administrator/staff attitudes about suicide and how negative attitudes impede suicide prevention efforts, predisposing risk factors, warning signs and symptoms, identifying suicidal inmates despite the denial of risk, and review of any changes to the facility’s suicide prevention plan. The annual training should also include general discussion of any recent suicides and/or suicide attempts in the facility.
In addition, all staff who have routine contact with inmates should receive standard first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training. All staff should also be trained in the use of various emergency equipment located in each housing unit. In an effort to ensure an efficient emergency response to suicide attempts, “mock drills” should be incorporated into both initial and refresher training for all staff.
[1220877-1]

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Docum2ent 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 24 of 30
Identification/Referral/Evaluation Intake screening and on-going assessment of all inmates is critical to a correctional facility’s suicide prevention efforts. It should not be viewed as a single event, but as an on-going process because inmates can become suicidal at any point during their confinement, including the initial admission into the facility; after adjudication when the inmate is returned to the facility from court; following receipt of bad news or after suffering any type of humiliation or rejection; confinement in isolation or segregation; and following prolonged a stay in the facility. In addition, although there is no single set of risk factors that mental health and medical communities agree can be used to predict suicide, there is little disagreement about the value of screening and assessment in preventing suicide. Research consistently reports that approximately two-thirds of all suicide victims communicate their intent some time before death, and that any individual with a history of one or more suicide attempts is at a much greater risk for suicide than those who have never made an attempt. Intake screening for suicide risk may be contained within the medical screening form or as a separate form. The screening process should include inquiry regarding: past suicidal ideation and/or attempts; current ideation, threat, plan; prior mental health treatment/hospitalization; recent significant loss (job, relationship, death of family member/close friend, etc.); history of suicidal behavior by family member/close friend; suicide risk during prior confinement; and arresting/transporting officer(s) belief that the inmate is currently at risk. Specifically, inquiry should determine the following:
[1220877-1]

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 25 of 30

•

Was the inmate a medical, mental health or suicide risk during any prior

contact and/or confinement within this facility?

•

Does the arresting and/or transporting officer have any information (e.g.,

from observed behavior, documentation from sending agency or facility,

conversation with family member) that indicates inmate is a medical,

mental health or suicide risk now?

•

Have you ever attempted suicide?

•

Have you ever considered suicide?

•

Are you now or have you ever been treated for mental health or emotional

problems?

•

Have you recently experienced a significant loss (relationship, death of

family member/close friend, job, etc.)?

•

Has a family member/close friend ever attempted or committed suicide?

•

Do you feel there is nothing to look forward to in the immediate future

(expressing helplessness and/or hopelessness)?

•

Are you thinking of hurting and/or killing yourself?

Although an inmate’s verbal responses during the intake screening process are critically important to assessing the risk of suicide, staff should not exclusively rely on an inmate’s denial that they are suicidal and/or have a history of mental illness and suicidal behavior, particularly when their behavior and/or actions or even previous confinement in the facility suggest otherwise.
The process should also include referral procedures to mental health and/or medical personnel for a more thorough and complete assessment.
The intake screening process should be viewed as similar to taking your temperature, it can identify a current fever, but not a future cold. Therefore, following the intake screening process, should any staff hear an inmate verbalize a desire or intent to commit suicide, observe an inmate engaging in any self-harm, or otherwise believe an inmate is at risk for suicide, a procedure should be in place that requires staff to take immediate action to ensure that the individual is constantly observed until appropriate medical, mental health, and/or supervisory assistance is obtained.

[1220877-1]

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 26 of 30
Finally, given the strong association between inmate suicide and isolation/special management (e.g., disciplinary and/or administrative segregation) housing unit placement, any inmate assigned to such a special housing unit should receive a written assessment for suicide risk by medical or mental health staff upon admission to the placement.
The screening and assessment process is only one of several tools that increases the opportunity to identify suicide risk in inmates. This process, coupled with staff training, will only be successful if an effective method of communication is in place at the facility.
Communication
Certain behavioral signs exhibited by the inmate may be indicative of suicidal behavior and, if detected and communicated to others, can reduce the likelihood of suicide. In addition, most suicides can be prevented by correctional staff who establish trust and rapport with inmates, gather pertinent information, and take action. There are essentially three levels of communication in preventing inmate suicides: between the arresting/transporting officer and correctional staff; between and among facility staff (including correctional, medical and mental health personnel); and between facility staff and the suicidal inmate.
In many ways, suicide prevention begins at the point of arrest. At Level 1, what an arrestee says and how they behave during arrest, transport to the facility, and at intake are crucial in detecting suicidal behavior. The scene of arrest is often the most volatile and emotional time for the individual. Arresting officers should pay close attention to the arrestee during this time; suicidal behavior may be manifested by the anxiety or hopelessness of the situation, and previous behavior can be confirmed by onlookers such as family members and friends. Any pertinent information regarding the arrestee’s well-being must be communicated by the arresting or transporting officer to correctional staff. It is also critically important for correctional staff to maintain open lines of communication with family members who often have pertinent information regarding the mental health status of inmates.
At Level 2, effective management of suicidal inmates is based on communication among correctional personnel and other professional staff in the facility. Because inmates can become suicidal at any point during confinement, correctional staff must maintain awareness, share information and make appropriate referrals to mental health and medical staff. At a minimum, the facility’s shift supervisor should ensure that appropriate correctional staff are properly informed of the status of each inmate placed on suicide precautions. The shift supervisor should also be responsible for briefing the incoming shift supervisor regarding the status of all inmates on suicide precautions. Multidisciplinary team meetings (to include correctional, medical and mental health personnel) should occur on a regular basis to discuss the status of inmates on suicide precautions. Finally, the authorization for suicide precautions, any changes in suicide precautions, and observation of inmates placed on precautions should be documented on designated forms and distributed to appropriate staff.
[1220877-1]

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 27 of 30
At Level 3, facility staff must use various communication skills with the suicidal inmate, including active listening, staying with the inmate if they suspect immediate danger, and maintaining contact through conversation, eye contact, and body language. Correctional staff should trust their own judgment and observation of risk behavior, and avoid being misled by others (including mental health staff) into ignoring signs of suicidal behavior.
Poor communication between and among correctional, medical, and mental health personnel, as well as outside entities (e.g., arresting or referral agencies, family members) is a common factor found in the reviews of many custodial suicides. Communication problems are often caused by lack of respect, personality conflicts and boundary issues. Simply stated, facilities that maintain a multidisciplinary approach avoid preventable suicides.
Housing
In determining the most appropriate housing location for a suicidal inmates, correctional facility officials (with concurrence from medical and/or mental health staff) often tend to physically isolate (or segregate) and sometimes restrain the individual. These responses might be more convenient for all staff, but they are detrimental to the inmate since the use of isolation escalates the sense of alienation and further removes the individual from proper staff supervision. To every extent possible, suicidal inmates should be housed in the general population, mental health unit, or medical infirmary, located close to staff. Further, removal of an inmate’s clothing (excluding belts and shoelaces) and the use of physical restraints (e.g., restraint chairs or boards, leather straps, handcuffs, straitjackets) should be avoided whenever possible, and used only as a last resort when the inmate is physically engaging in self-destructive behavior. Housing assignments should be based on the ability to maximize staff interaction with the inmate, not on decisions that heighten depersonalizing aspects of confinement.
All cells designated to house suicidal inmates should be as suicide-resistant as is reasonably possible, free of all obvious protrusions, and provide full visibility. These cells should contain tamper-proof light fixtures, smoke detectors and ceiling/wall air vents that are protrusion-free. In addition, the cells should not contain any live electrical switches or outlets, bunks with open bottoms, any type of clothing hook, towel racks on desks and sinks, radiator vents, or any other object that provides an easy anchoring device for hanging. Each cell door should contain a heavy gauge Lexan (or equivalent grade) clear panel that is large enough to allow staff a full and unobstructed view of the cell interior. Finally, each housing unit in the facility should contain various emergency equipment, including a first aid kit, pocket mask or face shield, Ambu-bag, and rescue tool (to quickly cut through fibrous material). Correctional staff should ensure that such equipment is in working order on a daily basis.
[1220877-1]

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 28 of 30
Levels of Observation/Management
In regard to suicide attempts in correctional facilities, the promptness of the response is often driven by the level of supervision afforded the inmate. The planning of and preparation for suicide can take several minutes; brain damage from strangulation caused by a suicide attempt can occur within 4 minutes, and death often within 5 to 6 minutes. Two levels of supervision are generally recommended for suicidal inmates: close observation and constant observation.
Close Observation is reserved for the inmate who is not actively suicidal, but expresses suicidal ideation (e.g., expressing a wish to die without a specific threat or plan) and/or has a recent prior history of self-destructive behavior. In addition, an inmate who denies suicidal ideation or does not threaten suicide, but demonstrates other concerning behavior (through actions, current circumstances, or recent history) indicating the potential for self-injury, should be placed under close observation. Staff should observe such an inmate in a protrusion-free cell at staggered intervals not to exceed every 10 minutes (e.g., 5, 10, 7 minutes).
Constant Observation is reserved for the inmate who is actively suicidal, either threatening or engaging in suicidal behavior. Staff should observe such an inmate on a continuous, uninterrupted basis. In some jurisdictions, an intermediate level of supervision is utilized with observation at staggered intervals that do not exceed every 5 minutes.
Other aids (e.g., closed-circuit television, cell mates) can be used as a supplement to, but never as a substitute for, these observation levels.
Because death from a suicide attempt can occurs within a short duration, observation of a suicidal inmate at intervals less frequent than continuous observation can only be successful if the observation is staggered and the cell is suicide-resistant.
In addition, mental health staff should assess and interact with (not just observe) the suicidal inmate on a daily basis. The daily assessment should focus on the current behavior, as well as changes in thoughts and behavior during the past 24 hours (e.g., “What are your current feelings and thoughts?” “Have your feelings and thoughts changed over the past 24 hours?” “What are some of the things you have done or can do to change these thought and feelings?,” etc.)
An individualized treatment plan (to include follow-up services) should be developed for each inmate on suicide precautions. The plan should be developed by qualified mental health staff in conjunction with not only the inmate, but medical and correctional personnel. The treatment plan should describe signs, symptoms, and the circumstances under which the risk for suicide is likely to recur, how recurrence of suicidal thoughts can be avoided, and actions the inmate and staff will take if suicidal ideation reoccurs.
[1220877-1]

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 29 of 30
Finally, due to the strong correlation between suicide and prior suicidal behavior, in order to safeguard the continuity of care for suicidal inmates, all inmates discharged from suicide precautions should remain on mental health caseloads and receive regularly scheduled follow-up assessments by mental health personnel until their release from custody. Although there is not any nationally-acceptable schedule for follow-up, a suggested assessment schedule following discharge from suicide precautions might be: 24 hours, 72 hours, 1 week, and periodically until release from custody.
Intervention
Following a suicide attempt, the degree and promptness of the staff’s intervention often foretells whether the victim will survive. National correctional standards and practices generally acknowledge that a facility’s policy regarding intervention should be threefold. First, all staff who come into contact with the inmate should be trained in standard first aid procedures and CPR. Second, any staff member who discovers an inmate engaging in self-harm should immediately survey the scene to assess the severity of the emergency, alert other staff to call for medical personnel if necessary, and begin standard first aid and/or CPR as necessary. If facility policy prohibits an officer from entering a cell without backup support, the first responding officer should, at a minimum, make the proper notification for backup support and medical personnel, secure the area outside the cell, and retrieve the housing unit’s emergency response bag (that should include a first aid kit, pocket mask or face shield, Ambu-bag, and rescue tool). Third, correctional staff should never presume that the victim is dead, but rather should initiate and continue appropriate life-saving measures until relieved by arriving medical personnel. In addition, medical personnel should ensure that all equipment utilized in responding to an emergency within the facility is in working order on a daily basis.
Finally, although not all suicide attempts require emergency medical intervention, all suicide attempts should result in immediate intervention and assessment by mental health staff.
Reporting
In the event of a suicide attempt or suicide, all appropriate officials should be notified through the chain of command. Following the incident, the victim’s family should be immediately notified, as well as appropriate outside authorities. All staff who came into contact with the victim before the incident should be required to submit a statement including their full knowledge of the inmate and incident.
[1220877-1]

Case 2:11-cv-00536-MCE-KJN Document 105 Filed 07/02/14 Page 30 of 30
Follow-Up/Mortality-Morbidity Review An inmate suicide is extremely stressful for both staff and other inmates. Staff may also feel ostracized by fellow personnel and administration officials. Following a suicide, misplaced guilt is sometimes displayed by a correctional officer who wonders: “What if I had made my cell check earlier?” Inmates are often traumatized by critical events occurring within a facility. Such trauma may lead to suicide contagion. When crises occur in which staff and inmates are affected by the traumatic event, they should be offered immediate assistance. One form of assistance is Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD). A CISD team, comprised of professionals trained in crisis intervention and traumatic stress awareness (e.g., police officers, paramedics, fire fighters, clergy, mental health personnel), provides affected staff and inmates an opportunity to process their feelings about the incident, develop an understanding of critical stress symptoms, and seek ways of dealing with those symptoms. For maximum effectiveness, the CISD process or other appropriate support services should occur within 24 to 72 hours of the critical incident. Every completed suicide, as well as serious suicide attempt (i.e., requiring medical treatment and/or hospitalization), should be examined through a mortality-morbidity review process. If resources permit, clinical review through a psychological autopsy is also recommended. Ideally, the mortality-morbidity review should be coordinated by an outside agency to ensure impartiality. The review, separate and apart from other formal investigations that may be required to determine the cause of death, should include a critical inquiry of: 1) the circumstances surrounding the incident; 2) facility procedures relevant to the incident; 3) all relevant training received by involved staff; 4) pertinent medical and mental health services/reports involving the victim; 5) possible precipitating factors leading to the suicide or serious suicide attempt; and 6) recommendations, if any, for changes in policy, training, physical plant, medical or mental health services, and operational procedures.
Revised: May 2013
[1220877-1]

 
 Case: 2:11-cv-536 As of: 07/15/2015 12:42 AM PDT 1 of 15
CIVIL,CLOSED
U.S. District Court Eastern District of California − Live System (Sacramento) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:11−cv−00536−MCE−KJN

Bock et al v. County of Sutter et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/24/2011 Date Terminated: 09/04/2014 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Cyndie Denny Bock as Administator of the Estate of Rodney Louis Bock

represented by Jennifer Stark Rosen, Bien, Galvan & Grunfeld 315 Montgomery St., 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415−433−6830 Email: jstark@rbgg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron Joseph Fischer Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 315 Montgomery Street 10th Fl San Francisco, CA 94104 415−433−6830 ext.255 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: afischer@rbgg.com

Geri Lynn Green Law Offices of Green & Green, LLP 4 Embarcadero Center, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 982−2600 Fax: (415) 358−4562 Email: gerilynngreen@gmail.com TERMINATED: 03/26/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lori Rifkin Rifkin Law Office P.O. Box 19169 Oakland, CA 94619 United Sta 415−685−9351 Email: lrifkin@rifkinlawoffice.com TERMINATED: 03/26/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ernest Galvan Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 315 Montgomery Street 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 433−6830 x223 Fax: (415) 433−7104 Email: egalvan@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kimberly Bock

represented by Jennifer Stark (See above for address)

Case: 2:11-cv-536 As of: 07/15/2015 12:42 AM PDT 2 of 15

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron Joseph Fischer (See above for address)

Geri Lynn Green (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ernest Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kellie Bock

represented by Jennifer Stark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron Joseph Fischer (See above for address)

Geri Lynn Green (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ernest Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hillary Bock

represented by Jennifer Stark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron Joseph Fischer (See above for address)

Geri Lynn Green (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ernest Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
M. B. minor through her mother and guardian ad litem Cyndie Denny Bock

represented by Jennifer Stark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron Joseph Fischer (See above for address)

Geri Lynn Green (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2014

Case: 2:11-cv-536 As of: 07/15/2015 12:42 AM PDT 3 of 15

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ernest Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Laura Lynn Bock

represented by Jennifer Stark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron Joseph Fischer (See above for address)

Geri Lynn Green (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ernest Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Robert Bock

represented by Jennifer Stark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron Joseph Fischer (See above for address)

Geri Lynn Green (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ernest Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant County of Sutter
Defendant County of Yuba

represented by John Robert Whitefleet Porter Scott, APC 350 University Avenue Suite 200 P.O. Box 255428 Sacramento, CA 95823 916−929−1481 Ext. 347 Fax: 916−927−3706 Email: jwhitefleet@porterscott.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Robert Whitefleet (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:11-cv-536 As of: 07/15/2015 12:42 AM PDT 4 of 15

Defendant California Department of Mental Health TERMINATED: 03/12/2012 Defendant J. Paul Parker
Defendant Tom Sherry TERMINATED: 03/12/2012
Defendant Amerjit Bhattal TERMINATED: 03/12/2012
Defendant Brad Luz
Defendant Cliff Allenby TERMINATED: 05/26/2011 Defendant Dolly Mattheucci TERMINATED: 05/26/2011 Defendant Christopher Barnett
Defendant Sadoutounnissa Meer TERMINATED: 03/12/2012
Defendant John S. Zil
Defendant David Samson

represented by John Robert Whitefleet (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Robert Whitefleet (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Robert Whitefleet (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Robert Whitefleet (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Robert Whitefleet (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Robert Whitefleet (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Robert Whitefleet (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Robert Whitefleet (See above for address)

Case: 2:11-cv-536 As of: 07/15/2015 12:42 AM PDT 5 of 15

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Norman Bidwell

represented by John Robert Whitefleet (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Bobby Joe Little

represented by John Robert Whitefleet (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant David Calapini

represented by John Robert Whitefleet (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Shaun Fliehman

represented by John Robert Whitefleet (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant R. C.

represented by John Robert Whitefleet (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Katy Mullin

represented by John Robert Whitefleet (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Denise McGinnis

represented by John Robert Whitefleet (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Sutter County Jail Facility Manager

represented by John Robert Whitefleet (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Rainbow Crane

represented by John Robert Whitefleet (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Lewis McElfresh

represented by

Case: 2:11-cv-536 As of: 07/15/2015 12:42 AM PDT 6 of 15

John Robert Whitefleet (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Baljinder Rai

represented by John Robert Whitefleet (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/24/2011
02/25/2011 02/25/2011 02/25/2011
02/25/2011 05/25/2011 05/26/2011 06/20/2011
06/28/2011 06/29/2011 07/05/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Violation of Civil Rights against Cliff Allenby, Christopher Barnett, Amerjit Bhattal, California Department of Mental Health, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, Brad Luz, Dolly Mattheucci, Sadoutounnissa Meer, J. Paul Parker, Tom Sherry, John S Zil, MD by Cyndie Denny Bock. Attorney Galvan, Ernest added.(Galvan, Ernest) (Entered: 02/24/2011)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET by M. B., Cyndie Denny Bock, Hillary Bock, Kellie Bock, Kimberly Bock, Laura Lynn Bock, Robert Bock (Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
RECEIPT number #CAE200033579 $350.00 fbo Bock, et al by Aaron Fisher on 2/25/2011. (Matson, R) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
4 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Cliff Allenby, Christopher Barnett, Amerjit Bhattal, California Department of Mental Health, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, Brad Luz, Dolly Mattheucci, Sadoutounnissa Meer, J. Paul Parker, Tom Sherry, John S. Zil* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Ernest Galvan* *315 Montgomery Street* *10th Floor* *San Francisco, CA 94104−1823*. (Matson, R) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
5 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form, # 2 VDRP Form) (Matson, R) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants by plaintiffs; DEMAND for Jury Trial. Attorney Fischer, Aaron Joseph added. (Fischer, Aaron) Modified on 5/26/2011 (Marciel, M). (Entered: 05/25/2011)
7 (DISREGARD − Duplicate of 6 First Amended Complaint.) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants by plaintiffs. (Galvan, Ernest) Modified on 6/21/2011 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 05/26/2011)
8 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: Christopher Barnett served on 6/15/2011, answer due 7/6/2011; Amerjit Bhattal served on 6/15/2011, answer due 7/6/2011; County of Sutter served on 6/15/2011, answer due 7/6/2011; County of Yuba served on 6/15/2011, answer due 7/6/2011; Brad Luz served on 6/15/2011, answer due 7/6/2011; Sadoutounnissa Meer served on 6/15/2011, answer due 7/6/2011; J. Paul Parker served on 6/15/2011, answer due 7/6/2011; Tom Sherry served on 6/15/2011, answer due 7/6/2011; John S. Zil served on 6/20/2011, answer due 7/11/2011. (Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
9 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limits by Christopher Barnett, Amerjit Bhattal, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, Brad Luz, Sadoutounnissa Meer, J. Paul Parker, Tom Sherry, John S. Zil for /to Exceed Page Limits. Attorney Whitefleet, John Robert added. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
10 ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 06/28/11 GRANTING the 9 Ex Parte Application. Defendants points and authorities are not to exceed 25 pages in length. (Michel, G) (Entered: 06/29/2011)
11 MOTION to DISMISS by Christopher Barnett, Amerjit Bhattal, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, Brad Luz, Sadoutounnissa Meer, J. Paul Parker, Tom Sherry, John S. Zil. Motion Hearing set for 8/25/2011 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Notice)(Whitefleet, John) (Entered:

Case: 2:11-cv-536 As of: 07/15/2015 12:42 AM PDT 7 of 15

08/09/2011 08/15/2011 08/16/2011 08/23/2011 08/23/2011 08/23/2011 08/29/2011 08/30/2011 09/01/2011
12/12/2011 12/29/2011
01/05/2012
01/09/2012

07/05/2011)
12 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for /to Continue Hearing date re 11 MOTION to DISMISS by Christopher Barnett, Amerjit Bhattal, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, Brad Luz, Sadoutounnissa Meer, J. Paul Parker, Tom Sherry, John S. Zil. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 08/09/2011)
13 ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 8/15/11 as to 11 MOTION to DISMISS : Motion Hearing reset for 9/6/2011 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Judge Morrison C. England Jr. (Manzer, C) (Entered: 08/15/2011)
14 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Christopher Barnett, Amerjit Bhattal, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, Brad Luz, Sadoutounnissa Meer, J. Paul Parker, Tom Sherry, John S. Zil. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 08/16/2011)
15 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limit in Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by M. B., Cyndie Denny Bock, Hillary Bock, Kellie Bock, Kimberly Bock, Laura Lynn Bock, Robert Bock. (Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 08/23/2011)
16 OPPOSITION by M. B., Cyndie Denny Bock, Hillary Bock, Kellie Bock, Kimberly Bock, Laura Lynn Bock, Robert Bock to 11 MOTION to DISMISS. (Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 08/23/2011)
17 REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by M. B., Cyndie Denny Bock, Hillary Bock, Kellie Bock, Kimberly Bock, Laura Lynn Bock, Robert Bock in re 16 Opposition to Motion. (Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 08/23/2011)
18 REPLY by Christopher Barnett, Amerjit Bhattal, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, Brad Luz, Sadoutounnissa Meer, J. Paul Parker, Tom Sherry, John S. Zil re 16 Opposition to Motion. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 08/29/2011)
19 ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 8/29/11 ORDERING that Plaintiffs' ex parte application to exceed the page limit for their Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (Becknal, R) (Entered: 08/30/2011)
20 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by CRD S. Deutsch for District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: On the Court's own motion and pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 11 , scheduled for hearing on 9/6/2011, is submitted without oral argument. The hearing date of 9/6/2011 is vacated. If the Court determines that oral argument is needed, it will be scheduled at a later date.(Deutsch, S) (Entered: 09/01/2011)
21 MOTION for PROTECTIVE ORDER and TEMPORARY STAY of DISCOVER by County of Sutter. Motion Hearing set for 1/5/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (GGH) before Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows. (Whitefleet, John) Modified on 12/14/2011 (Marciel, M). (Entered: 12/12/2011)
22 JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT by Defendants Christopher Barnett, Amerjit Bhattal, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, Brad Luz, Sadoutounnissa Meer, J. Paul Parker, Tom Sherry, John S. Zil re 21 Motion for Protective Order and for Temporary Stay of Discovery. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Whitefleet, John) Modified on 1/3/2012 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 12/29/2011)
23 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows: MOTION HEARING held on 1/5/2012 re 21 Motion for Protective Order and for Temporary Stay of Discovery filed by County of Sutter. The motion is submitted the court will issue a written order. Discovery is stayed for a period of thirty days. Plaintiffs Counsel Aaron Fischer and Ernest Galvan present. Defendants Counsel John Whitefleet present. Court Reporter/CD Number: 1 of 1. (Callen, V) Modified on 1/5/2012 (Callen, V). (Entered: 01/05/2012)
24 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/9/2012 ORDERING that Defendant County of Sutter's 21 motion for protective order and for temporary stay of discovery, filed December 12, 2011, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs may immediately obtain discovery regarding identities of potential Doe Defendants. All remaining discovery is STAYED for thirty days from the date of

Case: 2:11-cv-536 As of: 07/15/2015 12:42 AM PDT 8 of 15

02/03/2012 02/08/2012
02/23/2012 03/09/2012
03/23/2012 03/27/2012 03/27/2012
03/29/2012 03/30/2012 04/11/2012
04/25/2012
04/26/2012

this order. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 01/09/2012)
25 MOTION to COMPEL Doe Discovery in compliance with Court Order by Cyndie Denny Bock. Motion Hearing set for 3/1/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (GGH) before Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows. (Fischer, Aaron) Modified on 2/7/2012 (Marciel, M). (Entered: 02/03/2012)
26 ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 2/7/12 ORDERING that Defendants' MOTION TO DISMISS 11 is GRANTED without leave to Amend as to Plaintiffs' seventh cause of action against Defendants County of Sutter and County of Yuba, and GRANTED with leave to amend as to all Plaintiffs' remaining claims. Not later than thirty (30) days following the date this Memorandum and Order is electronically filed, Plaintiff may (but is not required to) file a Second Amended Complaint. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
27 WITHDRAWAL of 25 Motion to Compel Doe Discovery in compliance with Court Order by Cyndie Denny Bock. (Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 02/23/2012)
28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Christopher Barnett, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, J. Paul Parker, John S. Zil, David Samson, Norman Bidwell, Bobby Joe Little, David Calapini, Shaun Fliehman, R. C., Katy Mullin, Denise McGinnis, Sutter County Jail Facility Manager by Robert Bock, Kimberly Bock, Cyndie Denny Bock, Laura Lynn Bock, Kellie Bock, Hillary Bock, M. B..(Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
29 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Filing of Third Amended Complaint by M. B., Cyndie Denny Bock, Hillary Bock, Kellie Bock, Kimberly Bock, Laura Lynn Bock, Robert Bock. (Galvan, Ernest) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
30 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/27/12 ORDERING that Plaintiffs may file the Third Amended Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit A.(Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
31 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT against Christopher Barnett, Norman Bidwell, R. C., David Calapini, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, Shaun Fliehman, Bobby Joe Little, Denise McGinnis, Katy Mullin, J. Paul Parker, David Samson, Sutter County Jail Facility Manager, John S. Zil by Robert Bock, Kimberly Bock, Cyndie Denny Bock, Laura Lynn Bock, Kellie Bock, Hillary Bock, M. B.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Galvan, Ernest) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
32 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Norman Bidwell, David Calapini, Shaun Fliehman, Bobby Joe Little, David Samson, Sutter County Jail Facility Manager* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Ernest Galvan* *Rosen Bien & Galvan, LLP* *315 Montgomery Street 10th Floor* *San Francisco, CA 94104*. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 03/29/2012)
33 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *R. C., Denise McGinnis, Katy Mullin* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Ernest Galvan* *Rosen Bien & Galvan, LLP* *315 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor* *San Francisco, CA 94104*. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
34 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: Norman Bidwell served on 4/5/2012, answer due 4/26/2012; David Calapini served on 4/5/2012, answer due 4/26/2012; Shaun Fliehman served on 4/5/2012, answer due 4/26/2012; Bobby Joe Little served on 4/5/2012, answer due 4/26/2012; Denise McGinnis served on 4/5/2012, answer due 4/26/2012; Katy Mullin served on 4/5/2012, answer due 4/26/2012; David Samson served on 4/5/2012, answer due 4/26/2012. (Mantoan, Kathryn) (Entered: 04/11/2012)
35 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limits on Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss by Christopher Barnett, Norman Bidwell, David Calapini, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, Shaun Fliehman, Bobby Joe Little, Denise McGinnis, Katy Mullin, J. Paul Parker, David Samson, John S. Zil for /to Exceed Page Limits. Attorney Whitefleet, John Robert ADDED. (Whitefleet, John) Modified on 4/26/2012 (Michel, G). (Entered: 04/25/2012)
36 MOTION to DISMISS by Christopher Barnett, Norman Bidwell, David Calapini, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, Shaun Fliehman, Bobby Joe Little, Denise McGinnis, Katy Mullin, J. Paul Parker, David Samson, John S. Zil. Motion Hearing

Case: 2:11-cv-536 As of: 07/15/2015 12:42 AM PDT 9 of 15

04/30/2012 05/17/2012 05/24/2012 05/29/2012 08/10/2012 08/30/2012 08/31/2012
09/06/2012 09/10/2012
09/19/2012

SET for 5/31/2012 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Judge Morrison C. England Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Motion) (Whitefleet, John) Modified on 4/27/2012 (Michel, G). (Entered: 04/26/2012)
37 ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 4/27/12 ORDERING that Defendants' Ex Parte Application 35 is GRANTED. Defendants may file points and authorities not to exceed thirty (30) pages in length; the same page restrictions apply to Plaintiff's opposition memorandum. A reply, if any, shall not be more than fifteen (15) pages. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
38 OPPOSITION by Cyndie Denny Bock to 36 Motion to Dismiss. (Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 05/17/2012)
39 REPLY by Christopher Barnett, Norman Bidwell, David Calapini, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, Shaun Fliehman, Bobby Joe Little, Denise McGinnis, Katy Mullin, J. Paul Parker, David Samson, John S. Zil to RESPONSE to 36 Motion to Dismiss. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 05/24/2012)
40 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy A. Shaddox−Waldrop for District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr. on 5/29/2012: On the Court's own motion and pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the 36 Motion to Dismiss, scheduled for hearing on 5/31/2012, is submitted without oral argument. The hearing date of 5/31/2012 is vacated. If the Court determines that oral argument is needed, it will be scheduled at a later date. (Shaddox−Waldrop, A) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
41 MOTION to COMPEL Discovery re Plaintiff's First Set Requests for Production and First Set Interrogatories by Cyndie Denny Bock. Motion Hearing set for 09/06/12 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (GGH) before Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows. (Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
42 JOINT STATEMENT re Discovery Disagreement 41 Motion to Compel by Plaintiff Cyndie Denny Bock. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Aaron J. Fischer & Exhibits A−R)(Fischer, Aaron) Modified (Entered: 08/30/2012)
43 ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 8/30/12 ORDERING the County Defendants' Motion 36 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent with the foregoing. Not later than twenty (20) days following the date this Memorandum and Order is electronically filed, Plaintiffs may (but are not required to) file an amended complaint on those issues as to which the motion to dismiss was granted. If no amended complaint is filed within said twenty (20) day period, without further notice to the parties, the causes of action dismissed by virtue of this Memorandum and Order will be dismissed with prejudice. (Matson, R) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
44 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows: MOTION HEARING held on 9/6/2012 re 41 Motion to Compel filed by Cyndie Denny Bock. The Court and Counsel discuss the various production request and interrogatories. The court will issue a summary order. Plaintiffs Counsel Aaron Fischer present. Defendants Counsel John R. Whitefleet present. Court Reporter/CD Number: 1 of 1. (Callen, V) (Entered: 09/06/2012)
45 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/10/12 ORDERING that the Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery 41 , is granted in part as outlined at hearing; Plaintiffs shall provide to the County the documents containing signatures, for which they need identification of signatures, within 5 days of the hearing; The County shall further respond to the discovery disputes addressed at hearing, within 21 days of the hearing and in accordance with the directives announced at hearing; In addition, to the extent that the County is withholding any documents, created prior to the commencement of this litigation, on the basis of privilege, a privilege log describing each document withheld, including identification of date, author and recipient, shall be served upon plaintiff's counsel contemporaneously with its further discovery responses; Plaintiffs' request for sanctions is denied.(Becknal, R) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
46 TRANSCRIPT of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Proceedings held on 09/06/2012, before Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained

Case: 2:11-cv-536 As of: 07/15/2015 12:42 AM PDT 10 of 15

09/21/2012
09/25/2012 09/26/2012 10/10/2012 10/16/2012 10/16/2012
10/18/2012 11/01/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/16/2012

through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction must be filed within 5 court days. Redaction Request due 10/12/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/22/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/20/2012 filed by ECRO Jonathan Anderson, Phone number 916−930−4072 E−mail janderson@caed.uscourts.gov. (Anderson, J) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
47 MOTION to AMEND the 31 Amended Complaint, by M. B., Cyndie Denny Bock, Hillary Bock, Kellie Bock, Kimberly Bock, Laura Lynn Bock, Robert Bock. Motion Hearing set for 10/19/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Judge Morrison C. England Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Aaron J. Fischer & Exhibits A−B, # 2 Proposed Order)(Fischer, Aaron) Modified on 9/24/2012 (Meuleman, A). (Entered: 09/21/2012)
48 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint 47 . The Motion as filed is deficient and the Plaintiffs are directed to renotice the Motion in compliance with Local Rule 230(a). Accordingly, the 10/19/2012 hearing date is vacated. (Deutsch, S) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
49 NOTICE to RESCHEDULE HEARING on 47 MOTION to AMEND the 31 Amended Complaint, : Motion Hearing set for 11/1/2012 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 09/26/2012)
50 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Christopher Barnett, Norman Bidwell, David Calapini, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, Shaun Fliehman, Bobby Joe Little, Denise McGinnis, Katy Mullin, J. Paul Parker, David Samson, John S. Zil. (Whitefleet, John) Modified on 10/11/2012 (Michel, G). (Entered: 10/10/2012)
51 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/15/2012. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 10/16/2012)
52 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/15/2012 ORDERING that the parties have sought to have the court sign a protective order where documents designated by the parties as "confidential," or "highly confidential" are automatically filed under seal. This order modifies in part the 51 protective order submitted by the parties on 10/10/2012, and filed concurrently with this order, particularly paragraphs 7 and 14 of that order. Procedurally, the parties must comply with E. D. Local Rule 141.1 in addition to Rule 141, regarding the sealing of documents. The Court shall not retain jurisdiction to enforce, construe, or modify its terms after the final disposition of this action. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 10/16/2012)
53 AMENDED 47 MOTION to AMEND the Amended Complaint, by M. B., Cyndie Denny Bock, Hillary Bock, Kellie Bock, Kimberly Bock, Laura Lynn Bock, Robert Bock. Motion Hearing set for 11/15/12 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Aaron J. Fischer & Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 10/18/2012)
54 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION by Christopher Barnett, Norman Bidwell, David Calapini, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, Shaun Fliehman, Bobby Joe Little, Denise McGinnis, Katy Mullin, J. Paul Parker, David Samson, John S. Zil to 53 Amended Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
55 ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 11/06/12 ORDERING that the 53 Motion to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED; plaintiff shall file their Fourth Amended Complaint within 5 days. (Benson, A.) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
56 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants by plaintiffs; DEMAND for Jury Trial. (Fischer, Aaron) Modified on 11/7/2012 (Marciel, M) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
57 CIVIL COVER SHEET by plaintiffs (Fischer, Aaron) Modified on 11/7/2012 (Marciel, M) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
58 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Rainbow Crane, Lewis McElfresh, Baljinder Rai* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Aaron Joseph Fischer* *Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP* *315 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor* *San Francisco, CA 94104*. (Meuleman, A) (Entered: 11/16/2012)

Case: 2:11-cv-536 As of: 07/15/2015 12:42 AM PDT 11 of 15

12/10/2012
12/10/2012 12/13/2012 01/07/2013 01/31/2013 03/04/2013 03/04/2013 03/05/2013
03/19/2013 03/28/2013
03/29/2013

59 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to respond to 56 Fourth Amended Complaint by Christopher Barnett, Norman Bidwell, R. C., David Calapini, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, Rainbow Crane, Shaun Fliehman, Bobby Joe Little, Lewis McElfresh, Denise McGinnis, Katy Mullin, J. Paul Parker, Baljinder Rai, David Samson, Sutter County Jail Facility Manager, John S. Zil. Attorney Whitefleet, John Robert ADDED. (Whitefleet, John) Modified on 12/11/2012 (Michel, G). (Entered: 12/10/2012)
60 ANSWER to 56 Fourth Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by Christopher Barnett, Norman Bidwell, R. C., David Calapini, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, Rainbow Crane, Shaun Fliehman, Bobby Joe Little, Brad Luz, Lewis McElfresh, Denise McGinnis, Katy Mullin, J. Paul Parker, Baljinder Rai, David Samson, Sutter County Jail Facility Manager, John S. Zil. (Whitefleet, John) Modified on 12/11/2012 (Michel, G). (Entered: 12/10/2012)
61 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 12/13/2012: In light of the recent motions to dismiss, the Court orders a further Joint Status Report which complies with the attached Order 5 on or before 1/7/2013, with all parties participating. (Espana−Purpur, A) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
62 JOINT STATUS REPORT by M. B., Cyndie Denny Bock, Hillary Bock, Kellie Bock, Kimberly Bock, Laura Lynn Bock, Robert Bock. (Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
63 NOTICE of CHANGE of ADDRESS by Geri Lynn Green. (Green, Geri) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
64 ORDER by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.: Due to the recalled appointment of Magistrate Judge * Gregory G. Hollows* to the bench of the Eastern District, this action is reassigned to *Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman* for all further proceedings. (Donati, J) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
65 MOTION to COMPEL Production of Photographs From Defendant County of Sutter by Cyndie Denny Bock. Motion Hearing set for 4/4/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. (Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
66 MINUTE ORDER by Courtroom Deputy M. Caspar for Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/5/2012: Informing the parties that, due to the Court's own unavailability, the 4/4/2013 hearing re plaintiff's motion to compel 65 is hereby VACATED and CONTINUED to 4/11/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. Pursuant to Local Rule 251, a joint statement must be filed no later than 7 days prior to the hearing (TEXT ONLY) (Caspar, M) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
68 WITHDRAWAL of 65 MOTION to COMPEL Production of Photographs From Defendant County of Sutter by M. B., Cyndie Denny Bock, Hillary Bock, Kellie Bock, Kimberly Bock, Laura Lynn Bock, Robert Bock. (Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
69 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/26/13 ORDERING that All Discovery, with the exception of Expert Discovery, shall be completed by 4/9/2014. Disclosure of Expert Witnesses due by 6/9/2014. The last day to hear Dispositive Motions shall be 10/16/2014. The Final Pretrial Conference is SET for 12/18/2014 at 02:00 PM. The parties shall file, not later than 11/26/14, a Joint Final Pretrial Conference Statement. The parties shall file trial briefs not later than 12/4/14. Evidentiary and/or Procedural Motions are to be filed by 11/26/14. Oppositions must be filed by 12/4/14, and any reply must be filed by 12/11/14. Jury Trial is SET for 2/9/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Chief Judge Morrison C. England Jr. A Settlement Conference is SET before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan 7/25/2013 at 10:00 AM. Each party is directed to submit to the chambers of Judge Edmund F. Brennan Confidential settlement Conference Statements not later than 7/18/13. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 03/28/2013)
70 MOTION to COMPEL Production of Requested Documents by Cyndie Denny Bock. Motion Hearing set for 4/25/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. (Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 03/29/2013)

Case: 2:11-cv-536 As of: 07/15/2015 12:42 AM PDT 12 of 15

04/12/2013
04/18/2013 04/25/2013
04/29/2013
05/02/2013 05/02/2013 05/07/2013 05/07/2013 05/07/2013 05/07/2013 05/09/2013
05/13/2013 06/13/2013

71 MINUTE ORDER by Courtroom Deputy M. Caspar for Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/12/2013: ORDERING that, due to the court's own unavailability, the hearing on plaintiff's motion to compel 70 is continued to 5/2/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. The parties shall file their joint statement in compliance with Local Rule 251 no later than 4/25/2013. (TEXT ONLY)(Caspar, M) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
72 MOTION to COMPEL re Inspection of Sutter County Jail by Cyndie Denny Bock. Motion Hearing set for 5/9/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. (Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
73 STATEMENT of Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel by Plaintiff Cyndie Denny Bock re 70 MOTION to COMPEL Production of Requested Documents . (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Aaron J. Fischer in Support of Plaintiffs' Position re Discovery Disagreement)(Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 04/25/2013)
74 MINUTE ORDER: (Text Only Entry) On the court's own motion, the hearing on plaintiffs' motion to compel 70 , presently set for May 2, 2013, is continued to May 9, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 25 before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman (KJN), to be heard concurrently with plaintiffs' other motion to compel 72 set for that date.(Souvannarath, A) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
75 DECLARATION of John R. Whitefleet in SUPPORT of Joint Statement RE Discovery Disagreement on Plaintiff's 70 MOTION to COMPEL.(Whitefleet, John) Modified on 5/6/2013 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 05/02/2013)
76 JOINT STATEMENT re Discovery disagreement on Plaintiffs' 72 MOTION to COMPEL. Attorney Rifkin, Lori added. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lori E. Rifkin In Support of Motion)(Rifkin, Lori) Modified on 5/8/2013 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 05/02/2013)
77 PROPOSED ORDER re Motion to Compel Discovery re 73 Statement, 70 Motion to Compel Production of Requested Documents. (Fischer, Aaron) Modified on 5/10/2013 (Reader, L). (Entered: 05/07/2013)
78 PROPOSED ORDER re Motion to Compel Inspection 72 , and Statement 76 . (Fischer, Aaron) Modified on 5/10/2013 (Reader, L). (Entered: 05/07/2013)
79 DECLARATION of John R. Whitefleet in Support of to 72 Motion to Compel re Inspection of Sutter County Jail. (Whitefleet, John) Modified on 5/10/2013 (Reader, L). (Entered: 05/07/2013)
80 DECLARATION of Lt. Norman Bidwell in Support of Opposition to 72 Motion to Compel re Inspection of Sutter County Jail. (Whitefleet, John) Modified on 5/10/2013 (Reader, L). (Entered: 05/07/2013)
81 MINUTES for MOTION HEARING proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/9/2013: Court and counsel conferred re plaintiff's motions to compel 70 and 72 . Matters submitted. Order to issue. Plaintiffs Counsel Aaron Fischer for Lori Rifkin present. Defendants Counsel John Whitefleet present. ECRO/CD Number: 1 of 1. (Text Only) (Caspar, M) (Entered: 05/09/2013)
82 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/13/2013 ORDERING that Plaintiffs' 70 , 72 Motions to Compel are GRANTED IN PART. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
83 TRANSCRIPT of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Proceedings held on 05/09/2013, before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction must be filed within 5 court days. Redaction Request due 7/5/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/15/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/12/201 filed by ECRO Jonathan Anderson, Phone number 916−930−4072 E−mail janderson@caed.uscourts.gov3. (Anderson, J) (Entered: 06/13/2013)

Case: 2:11-cv-536 As of: 07/15/2015 12:42 AM PDT 13 of 15

07/16/2013 07/17/2013 07/18/2013 07/18/2013
07/23/2013 09/20/2013 01/02/2014
01/02/2014 01/09/2014
03/26/2014 03/26/2014
03/26/2014 03/28/2014
03/28/2014

84 Defendants' EX−PARTE APPLICATION to Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order RE 69 Scheduling Order. (Whitefleet, John) Modified on 7/17/2013 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 07/16/2013)
85 RESPONSE by Cyndie Denny Bock to 84 Application. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Aaron J. Fischer)(Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
86 NOTICE re Submission of Settlement Conference Statement by All Plaintiffs re 85 Response, 84 Application. (Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
87 NOTICE of Submission of Defendants' Confidential Settlement Conference Statement by Christopher Barnett, Norman Bidwell, David Calapini, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, Rainbow Crane, Shaun Fliehman, Bobby Joe Little, Lewis McElfresh, Denise McGinnis, Katy Mullin, J. Paul Parker, Baljinder Rai, David Samson, John S. Zil re 69 Scheduling Order,,,,. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
88 ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/23/2013 GRANTING 84 Request to modify the 69 Pretrial Scheduling Order. Settlement Conference is CONTINUED TO 1/9/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. (cc EFB) (Donati, J) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
89 MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY by Geri Lynn Green. (Galvan, Ernest) Modified on 9/24/2013 (Michel, G). (Entered: 09/20/2013)
90 STATEMENT of SUBMISSION OF DEFENDANTS' CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT by Defendants Christopher Barnett, Amerjit Bhattal, Norman Bidwell, David Calapini, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, Rainbow Crane, Shaun Fliehman, Bobby Joe Little, Lewis McElfresh, Denise McGinnis, Katy Mullin, J. Paul Parker, Baljinder Rai, David Samson, John S. Zil re 88 Order. (Whitefleet, John) Modified on 1/6/2014 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 01/02/2014)
91 NOTICE re Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement by All Plaintiffs. (Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
92 MINUTES (Text Only) for SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held on 1/9/2014 before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan: All parties present. After discussions with the Court, the case was unable to settle today. However, the Court ordered the matter set for further Settlement Conference on 4/17/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. Plaintiffs Counsel Michael Bean and Aaron Fischer present. Defendants Counsel John Whitefleet present. (Cannarozzi, N) (Entered: 01/09/2014)
93 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Filing of Fifth Amended Complaint by M. B., Cyndie Denny Bock, Hillary Bock, Kellie Bock, Kimberly Bock, Laura Lynn Bock, Robert Bock. (Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
94 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by courtroom deputy for Chief District Judge, Morrison C. England, Jr.: The Court is in receipt of a Motion to Withdraw as Attorney by Plaintiffs' counsel, Geri Lynn Green, ECF No. 89. However, to withdraw as counsel, Geri Lynn Green is directed to file a substitution of attorneys as set forth in Local Rule 182(g). Pursuant to Local Rule182(d), Geri Lynn Green need not submit a motion to withdraw as attorney under the circumstances and ECF No 89 is therefore DENIED without prejudice.(Deutsch, S) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
95 DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE., attorney Geri Lynn Green and Lori Rifkin terminated (Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
96 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/27/14 ORDERING the Court, having reviewed the above stipulation of the parties and in the interests of justice and good cause appearing, hereby GRANTS the Stipulation and GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint. The Fifth Amended Complaint, attached as Exhibit A to ECF No. 93, shall be deemed filed and served as of the date of the entry of this Order. (Becknal, R) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
97 FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT for Violation of Civil Rights and State Law; Demand for Jury Trial. (Becknal, R) (Entered: 04/01/2014)

Case: 2:11-cv-536 As of: 07/15/2015 12:42 AM PDT 14 of 15

04/04/2014
04/07/2014 04/07/2014
04/10/2014 04/17/2014
05/20/2014
05/20/2014 07/02/2014 07/03/2014 07/09/2014 07/22/2014 08/27/2014

98 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by CRD A. Shaddox−Waldrop for Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/4/2014: Pursuant to the parties' request, a telephonic discovery conference is set for Monday, 4/7/2014 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. Parties are instructed to file a joint discovery statement no more than 2 pages in length by 11:00 AM on 4/7/2014. Parties are further instructed to provide Judge Newman's courtroom deputy with telephone numbers for the conference. (Shaddox−Waldrop, A) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
99 STATEMENT of Parties re Discovery Dispute by M. B., Cyndie Denny Bock, Hillary Bock, Kellie Bock, Kimberly Bock, Laura Lynn Bock, Robert Bock re [ 98 ] Minute Order. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Aaron J. Fischer, # 2 Proposed Order)(Fischer, Aaron) Modified on 4/9/2014 (Reader, L). (Entered: 04/07/2014)
100 MINUTES for INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/7/2014: At the request of the parties, an informal telephonic discovery conference was conducted on 4/7/2014. The court provided the parties with informal guidance for resolution of their discovery dispute(s), for which no formal motion was filed. If the parties are unable to resolve their discovery dispute(s) informally, they shall proceed in accordance with the pretrial scheduling order, the court's Local Rules, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs Counsel Aaron Fischer present. Defendants Counsel John Whitfleet present. (Text Only) (Caspar, M) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
101 MINUTE ORDER by CRD: At the request of defense counsel and with no opposition by counsel for pltf, the further Settlement Conference is ordered reset from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on 4/17/2014 in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. (Text only entry) (Cannarozzi, N) (Entered: 04/10/2014)
102 MINUTES (Text Only) for SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held on 4/17/2014 before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan: All parties present. After discussions with the Court, the case was unable to settle today. However, the Court ordered the matter set for further Settlement Conference on 5/20/2014 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. Plaintiffs Counsel Michael Bien and Aaron Fischer present. Defendants Counsel John Whitefleet present. (Cannarozzi, N) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
103 MINUTES (Text Only) for SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held on 5/20/2014 before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan: All parties present. After further settlement discussions with the parties, the case was settled. The terms of the settlement agreement were placed on the record. Court order to issue. Plaintiffs Counsel Michael Bien and Aaron Fischer present. Defendants Counsel John Whitefleet present. Court Reporter/CD Number: ECRO, CD 1 of 1. (Cannarozzi, N) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
104 ORDER RE SETTLEMENT and DISPOSITION signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/20/2014 ORDERING that dispositional documents be filed no later than forty−five days from the date of this order. All hearing dates set in this matter are VACATED. (cc Settlement Judge Brennan)(Donati, J) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
105 NOTICE of Filing of Recommendations to Improve Care and to Avoid Preventable Deaths at Sutter County Jail by All Plaintiffs. (Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
106 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Request to Extend Time to File Dispositional Documents by County of Sutter, County of Yuba. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
107 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 7/8/14 ORDERING that the deadline to file dispositional documents is 7/24/14. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
108 STIPULATION of Dismissal by M. B., Cyndie Denny Bock, Hillary Bock, Kellie Bock, Kimberly Bock, Laura Lynn Bock, Robert Bock. (Fischer, Aaron) (Entered: 07/22/2014)
109 PROPOSED ORDER re 108 Stipulation of Dismissal by M. B., Cyndie Denny Bock, Hillary Bock, Kellie Bock, Kimberly Bock, Laura Lynn Bock, Robert Bock. Attorney Stark, Jennifer ADDED. (Stark, Jennifer) Modified on 8/28/2014 (Michel, G). (Entered: 08/27/2014)

Case: 2:11-cv-536 As of: 07/15/2015 12:42 AM PDT 15 of 15

09/04/2014

110 ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 9/3/2014 DISMISSING CASE with prejudice pursuant to F.R.Cv.P. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) re 108 Stipulation of Dismissal; ORDERING each party to bear its own fees and costs except to the extent provided in the respective settlement agreements. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G) (Entered: 09/04/2014)