Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 1 Filed 12/03/13 Page 1 of 8

1 James J. M~yfield 4401 Burr Court
2 Tracy, CA 95377 3 (408) 802-8712 4 In Pro Per
5

FILED
RICTCOURT F CALIFORNIA

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 JAMES J. MAYFIELD,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13 IVAN OROZCO and the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,
14
Defendants.
15

NO.: 2:l 3· -. CV- .. 2 4 9 9 JAM
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONt......,.. • ,.. DEMAND FOR JURY ·IKIAL
1. 42 u.s.c. § 1983
2. Assault 3. Battery 4. Nezlizence 5. CivU Code §52.1

C PS

16

17

Plaintiff alleges as follows:

18

1. This is an action for damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C §1983, the

19 4th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and the laws of California. This

20 action is against Sacramento County Sheriff's Deputy IVAN OROZCO and his

21 employer the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO. Deputy OROZCO unlawfully struck

22 plaintiff JAMES J. MAYFIELD in the face, head, and about the body while

23 MAYFIELD was in the custody of the Sacramento County Sheriff's Dept. at the

24 Sacramento County Jail.

25

2. JURISDICTION: This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant

26 to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3) in that the controversy arises under the

27 United States Constitution and under Title 42 U.S.C. §1983 and Title 28 U.S.C.

28

COMPLAINT

Page 1

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 1 Filed 12/03/13 Page 2 of 8

1 §2201. This Court has authority to award attorney's fees pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C.

2 §1988. Plaintiff further invokes the supplemental jurisdiction ofthis Court under 28

3 U.S.C. §1367(a) to hear and adjudicate state law claims.

4

PARTIES

5

3. Plaintiff JAMES J. MAYFIELD is a natural person.

6

4. The COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO (hereinafter "County") is a municipal

7 corporation which has, as one of its constituent parts, a department commonly

8 known as the "Sacramento Sheriff's Department". All persons who injured plaintiff

9 in the incident described in this complaint were employed by the County and thus
1o the County is liable for plaintiff's injuries on a respondeat superior theory.

11

5. Defendant IVAN OROZCO (hereinafter "Orozco") is at all times

12 mentioned a natural person who worked for the Sacramento Sheriff's Department as

13 a deputy sheriff and, in addition to acting on behalf of the Department, acted as an

14 agent for other officers ofthe department.

15

6. CALIFORNIA GOVT. TORT CLAIMS ACT: Plaintiffis informed and

16 believes and thereon alleges that a timely claim was filed on his behalf with the

17 County ofSacramento pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code §§910 et seq. and that said claim

18 was rejected by the County.

19

7. On or about Oct. 22, 20 12, plaintiff was incarcerated at the County jail

20 which is overseen by the Sacramento Sheriff's Department.

21

8. At approximately 6:30p.m defendant Orozco entered plaintiff's cell.

22

9. After entering the cell, defendant Orozco through threw plaintiffto the

23 ground. Orozco then kicked Mayfield in the face and, using his (Orozco's) own

24 knee, forcefully struck Mayfield in the head and shoulders.

25

10. As a result ofthis incident Mayfield suffered injuries to his body,

26 including, without limitation, numerous scrapes, severe bruising, and a laceration on

27 his lip which required stitches.

28

• COMPLAINT

Page2

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 1 Filed 12/03/13 Page 3 of 8

1

CAUSES OF ACTION

2

First Cause ofAction

3

(42 u.s.c. §1983)

4

(Against all defendants)

5

11. Plaintiffincorporates paragraphs 1-10 as if fully set forth herein.

6

12. The acts ofdefendants deprived plaintiff ofhis rights under the 4th and

7 14th Amendments of the Constitution, including, without limitation, the right to be

8 free ofunreasonable searches and seizures, the right to be free of excessive force,

9 the right to equal protection, and the right to be free from interference within the

10 zone of privacy.

11

13. The force used by defendant Orozco against plaintiffwas unjustified and

12 excess1ve.

13

14. All of the acts of defendants and the persons involved were done under

14 color and pretense ofthe statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, official policies,

15 official procedures, and usages of the County of Sacramento.

16

15. Various deputies, directly or indirectly, participated in the affirmative

17 acts ofthe others, with the result that plaintiffwas injured.

18

16. On information and belief, plaintiff alleges that the County of Sacramento

19 has an inadequate policy of supervising police officers and has not adequately

20 trained its police officers so as to prevent unlawful arrests such as that described

21 above.

22

17. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' actions, plaintiff suffered

23 humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, mental anguish, fear, anxiety, loss of

24 reputation, emotional distress, and loss ofhis liberty and freedom.

25

18. The conduct of defendants was performed with malice and oppression

26 and a conscious disregard ofplaintiff's rights, so as to justify an award ofexemplary

27 damages.

28

COMPLAINT

Page3

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 1 Filed 12/03/13 Page 4 of 8

1

Second Cause ofAction

2

(Assault)

3

(Against all defendants)

4

19. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-18 as if fully set forth herein.

5

20. Defendants' above-described actions constituted intent to place plaintiff

6 in immediate fear of an offense contact upon plaintiff's person. Defendants'

7 conduct also constituted intent to cause a harmful offensive contact upon plaintiff's

8 person. Defendants did not have consent, authority, or necessity to justify their

9 conduct.

10

21. Plaintiffwas placed in fear of an offense contact upon plaintiff's person

11 when defendants offensively touched him in the manner described above and also

12 when they caused him his injuries.

13

22. The conduct of defendants was performed with malice and oppression

14 and a conscious disregard of plaintiff's rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary

15 damages.

16

17

18

Third Cause ofAction

19

(Battery)

20

(Against all defendants)

21

23. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-22 as if fully set forth herein.

22

24. Defendants, without cause or justification, touched plaintiff with the

23 intent to harm or offend him.

24

25. Plaintiff did not consent to the touching,

25

26. Plaintiffwas harmed by the touching.

26

27

28

COMPLAINT

Page4

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 1 Filed 12/03/13 Page 5 of 8

1

27. The conduct ofdefendants was performed with malice and oppression

2 and a conscious disregard ofplaintiff's rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary

3 damages.

4

5

6

Fourth Cause ofAction

7

(Civil Code §52.1)

8

(Against all defendants)

9

28. Plaintiffincorporates paragraphs 1-27 as iffully set forth herein.

10

29. Defendants, without cause or justification, acted intimidatingly,

11 coercively, and violently against plaintiff and interfered with his civil rights.

12

30. Plaintiffwas harmed by these acts.

13

31. The conduct of defendants was performed with malice and oppression

14 and a conscious disregard of plaintiff's rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary

15 damages.

16

17

Fifth Cause ofAction

18

(Negligence)

19

(Against all defendants)

20

32. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-10 as if :fully set forth herein.

21

33. Defendants owed a duty to plaintiff to treat him reasonably, humanely,

22 and carefully while he was in their care.

23

34. Defendants breached this duty by doing the harmful acts mentioned

24 above.

25

35. Plaintiffwas harmed by these acts.

26

36. The conduct of defendants was performed with a conscious disregard of

27 plaintiff's rights so as to justify an award of exemplary damages.

28

COMPLAINT

Page5

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 1 Filed 12/03/13 Page 6 of 8

1

2

3

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR JUDGMENT AGAINST

4 DEFENDANTS AS FOLLOWS:

5

ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:

6

1. General damages;

7

2. Special damages and exemplary damages according to proof;

8

3. Costs, interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to plaintiffs to 42 U.S.C. §1988

9 and other pertinent federal law; and

1 o

4. Such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

11

12

13

ON THE SECOND AND TIDRD CAUSES OF ACTION:

14

1. General damages;

15

2. Special damages and exemplary damages according to proof;

16

3. Costs; and

17

4. Grant such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

18

19

ON THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

20

1. General damages;

21

2. Special damages and exemplary damages according to proof;

22

3. Award statutory penalties to plaintiffpursuant to California Civil Code

23 §52, et seq.

24

4. Costs, interest and attorneys' fees to plaintiffs pursuant to California Civil

25 Code §52, §52.1 and other pertinent California law; and

26

5. Such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

27

28

COMPLAINT

Page6

I.

I

~

•

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 1 Filed 12/03/13 Page 7 of 8

1

ON THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

2

1. General damages;

3

2. Special damages and exemplary damages according to proof;

4

3. Costs; and

5

4. Grant such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

6

7

8

9

JAMES J. AYFIELD

10

PLAINTIFF IN PRO PER

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT

Page7

It

(

11

•

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 1 Filed 12/03/13 Page 8 of 8

1

2

JURY DEMAND

3

Plaintiffs hereby requests a jury trial in this matter.

4
5 Dated: IJ.fsj;)
6

7
JAMES':[ MAYFffiLD

8

PLAINTIFF IN PRO PER

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT

PageS

 
 Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42 Filed 04/20/15 Page 1 of 3

1 WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD & BIRNEY, LLP SCOTT L. GASSAWAY (SBN 53581)
2 sgassaway@wilkefleury.com ROBERT F. TYLER, JR. (SBN 63055)
3 rtyler@wilkefleury.com 400 Capitol Mall, Twenty-Second Floor
4 Sacramento, California 95814

5 Telephone: (916) 441-2430 Facsimile: (916) 442-6664
6 Attorneys for Defendants
7 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DR. GREGORY SOKOLOV,
8 M.D., sued in his individual and official capacity

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION

11

12 JAMES JOSHUA MAYFIELD, JAMES ALLISON MAYFIELD, JR. and TERRI
13 MAYFIELD,

14

Plaintiffs,

15

v.

16 IVAN OROZCO, in his individual capacity; SHERIFF SCOTT JONES, in his individual
17 and official capacity; RICK PATTISON, in his individual and official capacity, COUNTY OF
18 SACRAMENTO; REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; and DR.
19 GREGORY SOKOLOV, in his individual and official capacity, and DOES 1-5,
20 Defendants.
21

22

23

Case No. 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC
ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ – COURTROOM 6
NOTICE OF MOTIONS AND MOTIONS
A. TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (FRCP 12(b)(1));
B. FAILURE TO STATE CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED (FRCP 12(b)(6); and
C. TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (FRCP 12(f))
(FRCP 12(b)(1); 12(b)(6); and 12(f))
Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez Date: May 20, 2015 Time: 9:30 A.M. Ctrm.: 6

24

Second Amended Complaint Filed: 3/19/15

Trial Date:

Not Yet Set

25

26 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

27

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on May 20, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the

28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

matter may be heard in Courtroom 6 of the above-entitled court located at 501 I Street, Sacramento,

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTIONS TO

-1-

DISMISS AND TO STRIKE

1266416.1

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42 Filed 04/20/15 Page 2 of 3

1 California, defendants REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DR. GREGORY

2 SOKOLOV, M.D., sued in his individual and official capacity, will and do hereby move this court for

3 the following orders:

4

1. Dismissing Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint as to the Regents in its entirety

5 under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter FRCP) 12(b)(1) on the ground that this court lacks

6 jurisdiction over the subject matter of any suit against the Regents as the Regents, as an

7 instrumentality of the State of California, are immune from being sued by any individuals for money

8 damages in any Federal Court by virtue of the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution;

9

2. Dismissing Plaintiffs’ Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action against defendant

10 Regents ;and defendant Sokolov in his “official capacity” under Rule 12(b)(6) on the ground that the

11 Regents are not “persons” within the meaning of the Federal Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1942);

12

3. Dismissing Plaintiffs Thirteenth Cause of Action against defendant Regents (dangerous

13 condition of public property) under Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis that said claim fails to state a claim

14 upon which relief can be granted, as a matter of law;

15

4. Striking Paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 of the Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(f)

16 as immaterial and impertinent;

17

5. Striking Paragraph 66 of said Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(f) as

18 impertinent. irrelevant, immaterial and/or scandalous;

19

6. Striking Paragraph 68 of the Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(f) as

20 immaterial, impertinent and/or scandalous;

21

7. That portion of Paragraph 131 appearing at page 12:23-24 and (“plaintiff James A.

22 Mayfield and Terri Mayfield”) under Rule 12(f) on the basis that it is impertinent and immaterial;

23

8. Striking the Eleventh (negligence) and Fifteenth (negligent infliction of emotional

24 distress) Causes of Action as against defendants Regents and Sokolov on the basis that they are

25 duplicative and redundant; and

26

9. Striking Prayer No. 7 (restitution) under Rule 12(f) as immaterial and impertinent.

27

10. Striking that portion of Prayer No. 8 appearing at 37:1, to wit: “including injunctive

28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

and/or declaratory relief,” under Rule 12(f) as immaterial and impertinent.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTIONS TO

-2-

DISMISS AND TO STRIKE

1266416.1

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42 Filed 04/20/15 Page 3 of 3

1

The motion under Rule 12(b)(1) is being made on the ground that this court lack subject matter

2 jurisdiction over any money damage suit against the Regents while the motions under 12(b)(6) are

3 made on the grounds that various of the causes of action stated within the Second Amended

4 Complaint fail to state causes of action upon which relief can be granted against these moving

5 defendants. The motions to strike various portions of plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint under

6 Rule 12(f) are made on the basis that said matters are variously irrelevant, impertinent, immaterial,

7 and/or scandalous. Said motions will be based on the present notice of motions and motions, the

8 memorandum of points and authorities submitted in support thereof, the Second Amended Complaint

9 itself, the pleadings and papers on file herein, and on other such further oral and/or written argument

10 as may be presented at or before hearing on these motions.

11 DATED: April 20, 2015 12

WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD & BIRNEY, LLP

13

By:

//Robert F. Tyler, Jr.

14

ROBERT F. TYLER, JR.

Attorneys for Defendants

15

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA and GREGORY SOKOLOV,

16

M.D., sued in his individual and official capacity

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE 1266416.1

-3-

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 1 of 18

1 WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD & BIRNEY, LLP SCOTT L. GASSAWAY (SBN 53581)
2 sgassaway@wilkefleury.com ROBERT F. TYLER, JR. (SBN 63055)
3 rtyler@wilkefleury.com 400 Capitol Mall, Twenty-Second Floor
4 Sacramento, California 95814

5 Telephone: (916) 441-2430 Facsimile: (916) 442-6664
6 Attorneys for Defendants
7 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and GREGORY SOKOLOV,
8 M.D., sued in his individual and official capacity

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION

11

12 JAMES JOSHUA MAYFIELD, JAMES ALLISON MAYFIELD, JR. and TERRI
13 MAYFIELD,

14

Plaintiffs,

15

v.

16 IVAN OROZCO, in his individual capacity; SHERIFF SCOTT JONES, in his individual
17 and official capacity; RICK PATTISON, in his individual and official capacity, COUNTY OF
18 SACRAMENTO; REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; and DR.
19 GREGORY SOKOLOV, in his individual and official capacity, and DOES 1-5,
20 Defendants.
21

Case No. 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC
ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ – COURTROOM 6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REGENTS AND SOKOLOV’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED, AND/OR TO STRIKE (FRCP 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), AND 12(f)
Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez Date: May 20, 2015 Time: 9:30 a.m. Crtrm.: 6

22

Second Amended Complaint Filed: 3/19/15

Trial Date:

Not Yet Set

23

24

25

26

27

28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REGENTS AND SOKOLOV’S MOTIONS 1266449.1

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 2 of 18

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Page

3 I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1

4 II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS........................................................................................... 1

5 III. LEGAL DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 3

6

A. PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED IN ITS

ENTIRETY AS TO THE REGENTS AND AS TO DEFENDANT

7

SOKOLOV “IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY” PURSUANT TO RULE

12(b)(1)...................................................................................................................... 3

8

B. THE THIRD, FOURTH, AND FIFTH CAUSES OF ACTION (CIVIL

9

RIGHTS VIOLATIONS) AND THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY) SHOULD BE

10

DISMISSED AS TO DEFENDANT REGENTS, AND THE TWELFTH

CAUSE OF ACTION (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION) DISMISSED AS

11

TO BOTH THE REGENTS AND DEFENDANT SOKOLOV PURSUANT

TO RULE 12(b)(6) .................................................................................................... 5

12

1. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard.................................................................................. 5

13

2. Plaintiff’s Third, Fourth And Fifth Causes Of Action Should Be

14

Dismissed As To The Regents And Defendant Sokolov Acting In

His “Official Capacity” Because They Are Not “Persons” Within

15

The Meaning Of The Federal Civil Rights Act............................................. 5

16

3. The Thirteenth Cause Of Action (Dangerous Condition Of Public

Property) Should Be Dismissed As To Defendant Regents .......................... 6

17

4. Conclusion..................................................................................................... 7

18

5. Conclusion..................................................................................................... 7

19

C. VARIOUS PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT SHOULD BE

20

STRICKEN UNDER FRCP 12(f) ............................................................................. 7

21

1. Rule 12(f) Standard ....................................................................................... 7

22

2. Paragraphs 21-23 Are Properly Stricken As Immaterial and

Impertinent .................................................................................................... 8

23

3. Paragraph 66 Is Properly Stricken As Immaterial, Impertinent And

24

Scandalous..................................................................................................... 8

25
26
27
28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

4. Paragraph 68 Of The Complaint Is Properly Stricken As Immaterial And Scandalous ............................................................................................. 9
5. That Portion Of Paragraph 131, Appearing At Page 29:23-24, To Wit: “And Plaintiffs James A. Mayfield (Sr.) And Terri Mayfield” Are Properly Stricken as Immaterial. ............................................................ 9

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REGENTS AND

-i-

SOKOLOV’S MOTIONS

1266449.1

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 3 of 18

1

6. Plaintiffs’ Eleventh (Negligence) And Fifteenth (Negligent

Infliction Of Emotional Distress) Causes Of Action Are Properly

2

Stricken As To Defendants Regents And Sokolov ..................................... 10

3
4
5
6 IV.
7

7. Plaintiffs’ Seventh Prayer, For Restitution, Is Properly Stricken As Impertinent And Immaterial ........................................................................ 11
8. That Portion Of Plaintiffs’ 8th Prayer, For Injunctive And/or Declaratory Relief, Is Properly Stricken As Impertinent and Immaterial ................................................................................................... 11
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 12

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REGENTS AND SOKOLOV’S MOTIONS 1266449.1

-ii-

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 4 of 18

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

Page

3

4 FEDERAL CASES

5 Armstrong v. Meyers 964 F.2d 948 (9th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................................. 5

6

Bond v. Regents of the University of California

7

504 F.Supp. 1349 (ED Cal., 1981) ........................................................................................ 4

8 Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.

80 F.3d 336 (9th. Cir. 1996).................................................................................................. 5

9

Goldstein v. North Jersey Trust Co.

10

39 FRD 363, 366 (S.D. N.Y. 1966)....................................................................................... 5

11 Jackson v. Hayakawa

682 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir. 1982)............................................................................................... 4

12

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America

13

511 U.S. 375 [114 S.Ct. 1673] (1994.) ................................................................................. 3

14 Korgich v. Regents of the Mexico School of Minds 582 F.2d 549 (10th Circuit, 1978) .......................................................................................... 4

15

Papasan v. Allain

16

478 U.S. 265[106 S.Ct. 2932] (1986.) .................................................................................. 4

17 Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman

465 U.S. 89 [104 S.Ct. 900 (1984)........................................................................................ 4

18

Sellers v. Regents of University of California,

19

432 F.2d 493 (9th Cir. 1970)................................................................................................. 5

20 Selman v. Harvard Medical School

494 F.Supp. 603 (S. Dist. NY, see e.g. 1980......................................................................... 4

21

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida

22

517 U.S. 44 [116 S.Ct. 1114] (1996) .................................................................................... 4

23 Thompson v. City of Los Angeles

885 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1989) ........................................................................................... 4, 5

24

Unified School District No. 480 v. Epperson

25

583 F.2d, 1118 (10th Cir., 1978) ............................................................................................ 4

26
27
28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

Vaughn v. Regents of the University of California 504 F.Supp. 1349 (E.D. Cal. 1981) ................................................................................... 4, 5

Wilkerson v. Butler 229 F.R.D. 166 (E.D. Cal 2007)........................................................................... 7, 9, 11, 12

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REGENTS AND SOKOLOV’S MOTIONS 1266449.1

-iii-

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 5 of 18

1 Williams v. Eaton 443 F.2d 442, 429 (10th Cir., 1971) ....................................................................................... 4
2

3

STATE CASES

4

Cerna v. City of Oakland

5

161 Cal.App.4th 1340, rehearing denied, review denied (2008) ........................................... 6

6 Hurlbut v. Sonora Community Hospital

207 Cal.3d 388 (1989)......................................................................................................... 10

7

Justice v. Atchison

8

19 Cal.3d 564-585 (1977) ................................................................................................... 10

9 Martinez v. County of Los Angeles

186 Cal.App.3d 884 (1986)................................................................................................. 10

10

Morton v. Thousand Oaks Surgical Hospital

11

187 Cal.App.4th 926 (2010)................................................................................................. 10

12

13 STATUTES

14 Government Code section 830(c)...................................................................................................... 6

15 Government Code section 830, et. seq.............................................................................................. 6

16

17 FEDERAL STATUTES

18 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 .................................................................................................. 5

19 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) .............................................................................. 1, 3, 12

20 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ............................................................................... passim

21 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(e)........................................................................................... 12

22 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f) ............................................................................... 1, 7, 8, 12

23

24 OTHER AUTHORITIES

25 California Constitution, Article IX, Section 9................................................................................... 4

26
27
28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (2000), Schwarzer et al., ¶9:77 at p. 9-17-9-18 ............................................................................................................. 3

Schwarzer, et al., California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (2000), ¶ 9:187 at p. 9-53...................................................................................................................... 5

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REGENTS AND SOKOLOV’S MOTIONS 1266449.1

-iv-

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 6 of 18

1 Schwarzer, et al., California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (2005), attacking the pleadings, ¶9-389 and 9-390, page 9-97 .................................................. 11, 12
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REGENTS AND SOKOLOV’S MOTIONS 1266449.1

-v-

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 7 of 18

1

I.

INTRODUCTION

2

3

Defendant Regents of the University of California and Dr. Gregory Sokolov, M.D.,

4 respectfully submit this memorandum of points and authorities in support of their motions to dismiss 5 under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure1 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and to strike under Rule 12(f).

6

II.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

7

8

James Mayfield (“plaintiff”) filed his original Complaint for money damages herein, in

9 propria persona, on December 3, 2013, naming Ivan Orozco, Sheriff Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick

10 Pattison and the County of Sacramento as defendants, alleging that they had violated his civil rights by

11 assaulting him in County Jail on or about October 22, 2012. Approximately 4½ months prior to that

12 filing, plaintiff suffered a severe injury while allegedly attempting suicide on July 17, 2013. (Second 13 Amended Complaint ¶2 74-77.) Approximately a month after filing his original Complaint, plaintiff

14 then filed a tort claim with the County of Sacramento on January 16, 2014 (¶ 87) protesting that, in

15 various regards, the County was responsible in damages for the injuries he suffered as a result of that

16 alleged suicide attempt. On March 26, 2014, plaintiff, again in pro per, filed his Amended Complaint,

17 for money damages arising from civil rights violations against him by the same “original” defendants,

18 now alleging not only the original assault (from November 22, 2012), but that the County Jail, by

19 allegedly failing to provide him with necessary care, treatment and evaluation for various (prior)

20 episodes of suicidal ideation, had failed to prevent him from attempting suicide on July 17, 2013,

21 causing him to suffer severe physical injury, i.e., a tetraparesis (Amended Complaint, generally ¶¶ 15-

22 20): claims were founded not only under Federal Civil Rights Act (e.g., First Cause of Action), but

23 state claims for the alleged negligent provision of health and mental health care to him (Fifth Cause of

24 Action). Shortly after plaintiff filed this Amended Complaint, plaintiff’s father, James Mayfield, Sr.,

25 requested a continuance of the scheduling conference so that he could obtain legal representation for

26

27
28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

1 All references to “Rule” herein are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise indicated. 2 All references to ¶ herein are to the paragraphs in the Second Amended Complaint, unless otherwise indicated.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REGENTS AND

-1-

SOKOLOV’S MOTIONS

1266449.1

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 8 of 18

1 his son. (Docket No. 11.) While two attorneys came in as counsel for plaintiff shortly thereafter

2 (Docket No. 13.), two weeks later, on August 1, 2014, those attorneys almost immediately then moved

3 to withdraw as counsel of record, which was granted by this court on September 17, 2014. (Docket

4 Nos. 17, 24 and 25). On December 18, 2014, plaintiff’s present counsel, the Hadsell, Stormer &

5 Renick law offices came in as counsel of record for plaintiff James Mayfield. (Docket No. 28.)

6 Thereafter, the original parties (i.e., Mr. Mayfield, Jr. and the County defendants) stipulated that

7 plaintiff could file a second amended complaint (SAC) which would not only add as plaintiffs Mr.

8 Mayfield’s father and step-mother, James Allison Mayfield, Sr. and Terri Mayfield, but several new

9 defendants, the Regents of the University of California (“Regents”), Dr. Gregory Sokolov (“Sokolov”)

10 and Does 1-5. Pursuant to that stipulation, the SAC was filed with this court on March 19, 2015. Dr.

11 Sokolov and the Regents accepted service of the SAC via Receipt and Acknowledgement on March

12 30, 2015.

13

As pertinent herein, the SAC generally alleges the same injuries and money damages set forth

14 within the Amended Complaint, i.e., a battery and civil rights violations by defendant Orozco as well

15 as alleged civil rights violations, medical negligence, and ancillary state law claims which allegedly

16 produced Mr. Mayfield, Jr.’s serious injury by and through an alleged failed suicide attempt. As

17 pertinent herein, the present moving parties, Regents and/or Sokolov, are named in 11 of the

18 complaint’s 15 causes of action, to wit: 3 federal civil rights claims (the Third, Fourth and Fifth

19 Causes of Action); a (Sixth) cause of action for medical negligence; a (Seventh) cause of action for

20 failure to furnish medical care under California Government Code section 845.6; an (Eleventh) cause

21 of action for general negligence; a (Twelfth) cause of action for negligent supervision, hiring and

22 training; a (Thirteenth) cause of action for dangerous condition of public property (against the

23 Regents, and not Sokolov); a (Fourteenth) cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional

24 distress; and, a (Fifteenth) cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

25

As will be shown below, however, the Regents are totally immune from suit herein, whether

26 based on federal or state law, under the Eleventh Amendment, while plaintiff’s Federal Civil Rights

27 claims against the Regents, and by parity, against defendant Sokolov in his “official capacity,” fail for

28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

the simple reason that the Regents and their employees acting in their official capacities are not

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REGENTS AND

-2-

SOKOLOV’S MOTIONS

1266449.1

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 9 of 18

1 “persons” within the meaning of the Federal Civil Rights Act. Last, plaintiff’s Thirteenth Cause of

2 Action, against the Regents for “dangerous condition of public property” is properly dismissed under

3 12(b)(6) in that it is simply a non sequitur – the Regents are alleged to have contracted to provide

4 services, and are not (nor can they be) alleged to have owned or maintained any piece of tangible

5 physical property which caused plaintiff injury.

6

In like manner, as will be discussed below, Paragraphs 22, 23, 66, and 68 of plaintiff’s

7 complaint as well as the Eleventh and Fifteenth Causes of Action, plaintiffs James Mayfield, Sr. and

8 Terri Mayfield’s claims for injury under their son’s medical negligence claim (¶ 131, at 12:22-24),

9 plaintiffs’ prayer (No. 7) for restitutionary relief, and plaintiffs’ inclusion of a prayer for injunctive

10 and/or declaratory relief (Prayer No, 8 at 37:1) are properly stricken under FRCP 12(f) as redundant,

11 immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.

12
13 A.
14
15

III. LEGAL DISCUSSION
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY AS TO THE REGENTS AND AS TO DEFENDANT SOKOLOV “IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY” PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(1)

16

Rule 12(b)(1) allows a party to move for dismissal based upon the court’s lack of subject

17 jurisdiction over them. Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff always bears the burden of establishing

18 subject matter jurisdiction, and “the court presumes lack of jurisdiction until plaintiff proves

19 otherwise.” (California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (2000), Schwarzer et al.,

20 ¶9:77 at p. 9-17-9-18, citing, inter alia, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375

21 [114 S.Ct. 1673] (1994.)

22

Defendant, the Regents, as an instrumentality of the State of California, established under

23 California Constitution Article IX, § 9 is totally immune from being sued by individuals in federal

24 court by virtue of the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads as follows:

25

“The Judicial Power of the United States shall not be construed to

extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against

26

one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or

Subjects of any Foreign State.”

27

28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

/ / /
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REGENTS AND SOKOLOV’S MOTIONS 1266449.1

-3-

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 10 of 18

1

Although suits against a State by a citizen of that same State are not within the explicit

2 prohibition of the Eleventh Amendment, it is widely recognized that such suits are in fact so

3 prohibited. “An unconsenting State (including its agencies or departments) is immune from suits

4 brought in federal court by her own citizens as well as citizens by another State.” (Pennhurst State

5 School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 [104 S.Ct. 900 (1984); see also Papasan v. Allain,

6 478 U.S. 265, 276 [106 S.Ct. 2932] (1986.) Moreover, the type of relief sought (e.g., injunctive or

7 monetary) is not germane to the question of whether the suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

8 (Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 58 [116 S.Ct. 1114] (1996).)

9

Here, the key point of inquiry is whether the Regents are properly considered an arm of the

10 State for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity. The answer is in the affirmative, for it has long

11 been established that “the Regents (are) an instrumentality of the State for the purposes of the

12 Eleventh Amendment.” (Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir. 1989); see

13 also Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1350 (9th Cir. 1982); Bond v. Regents of the University of

14 California, 504 F.Supp. 1349, 1353-1354 (ED Cal., 1981) (stating the factors compelling that

15 conclusion); see also, Article IX, Section 9 of the California Constitution (University of California is a

16 public trust to be administered by the existing corporation known as the “Regents of the University of

17 California.” The Regents of the University of California are a constitutionally created aspect of the

18 State of California itself, and as such, they are an arm of the State for purposes of the Eleventh

19 Amendment, enjoying a total immunity from any liability under any of the causes of action brought

20 herein. Given that there has been no waiver of this immunity, the present action must be dismissed as 21 against them in its entirety.3

22

The Eleventh Amendment likewise bars an actions against employees of the Regents who are

23 acting in their “official capacities.” (Vaughn v. Regents of the University of California, 504 F.Supp.

24 1349, 1353-1354 (E.D. Cal. 1981); see also, Unified School District No. 480 v. Epperson, 583 F.2d, 25 1118, 1121 (10th Cir., 1978); Williams v. Eaton, 443 F.2d 442, 429 (10th Cir., 1971).)

26

27
28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

3 While under California law, the Regents have the power to sue and be sued, this has not and cannot be construed as a waiver of
immunity from suit in Federal court provided by the Eleventh Amendment. (See, Selman v. Harvard Medical School, 494 F.Supp. 603, 615 (S. Dist. NY, see e.g. 1980; and Korgich v. Regents of the Mexico School of Minds, 582 F.2d 549, 551-552 (10th Circuit, 1978).

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REGENTS AND

-4-

SOKOLOV’S MOTIONS

1266449.1

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 11 of 18

1

As the present complaint herein solely seeks money damages against defendant Dr. Sokolov in

2 his official capacity as an employee of the Regents, as well as money damages against the Regents

3 themselves, it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment and should be dismissed in its entirety as to both.

4 (Vaughn v. Regents, supra, at 1349, 1353 (dismissing federal action against the Regents and its

5 employees based upon Eleventh Amendment immunity).)

6 B. 7 8 9 10

THE THIRD, FOURTH, AND FIFTH CAUSES OF ACTION (CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS) AND THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY) SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS TO DEFENDANT REGENTS, AND THE TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION) DISMISSED AS TO BOTH THE REGENTS AND DEFENDANT SOKOLOV PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(6)
1. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

11

Rule 12(b)(6) allows a party to move for dismissal based upon a plaintiff’s failure to state a

12 claim upon which relief can be granted. For the purposes of Rule 12(b)(6), a “claim means a set of

13 facts which, if established, gives rise to one or more enforceable legal rights.” (Goldstein v. North

14 Jersey Trust Co., 39 FRD 363, 366 (S.D. N.Y. 1966).) When examining a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “the

15 court must (1) construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff; (2) accept all well-

16 pleaded factual allegations as true; and (3) determine whether plaintiff can prove any set of facts to

17 support a claim that would merit relief.” (Schwarzer, et al., California Practice Guide: Federal Civil

18 Procedure Before Trial (2000), ¶ 9:187 at p. 9-53, citing, inter alia, Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.,

19 80 F.3d 336, 337-338 (9th. Cir. 1996).)

20

2. Plaintiff’s Third, Fourth And Fifth Causes Of Action Should Be Dismissed As To

The Regents And Defendant Sokolov Acting In His “Official Capacity” Because

21

They Are Not “Persons” Within The Meaning Of The Federal Civil Rights Act

22

Defendants, the Regents and, for the present purposes Sokolov in his “official capacity,” as

23 arms of the State of California itself, are not “persons,” within the meaning of the Federal Civil Rights 24 Act, including 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. (Armstrong v. Meyers, 964 F.2d 948, 949-950 (9th

25 Cir. 1992); Thompson v. Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir. 1989); Sellers v. Regents of

26 University of California, 432 F.2d 493, 500 (9th Cir. 1970).) Given that the Regents and Sokolov,

27 acting in his official capacity, are not “persons” within the meaning of the Federal Civil Rights Act,

28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

plaintiffs Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action, and each of them fail to state a claim upon which

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REGENTS AND

-5-

SOKOLOV’S MOTIONS

1266449.1

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 12 of 18

1 relief can be granted against them. The Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action should therefore be

2 dismissed without leave to amend, as to them, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

3

3. The Thirteenth Cause Of Action (Dangerous Condition Of Public Property)

Should Be Dismissed As To Defendant Regents

4

5

In their Thirteenth Cause of Action, plaintiffs’ allege that defendant Regents allowed a

6 “dangerous condition of public property” to exist which caused him harm, under Government Code 7 section 830, et. seq.4 In point of fact, however, plaintiffs’ claim, is as against defendant Regents, a

8 complete non sequitur. Thus, plaintiffs correctly allege that, as pertinent herein, the sole connection

9 the Regents have with the Sacramento County Jail’s operations solely lies in their contract to provide

10 psychiatric treatment to the inmates of the Sacramento County Jail. (SAC, ¶ 16.) Conversely, the

11 main charging allegation in the Thirteenth Cause of Action is that Mr. Mayfield’s inmate housing, i.e.,

12 the bunk bed in his cell, was physically dangerous and unsafe, (SAC ¶ 169.) The property that is

13 alleged to have been “dangerous,” however, was the physical jail facility itself, owned and operated

14 by the County, and not owned, operated or controlled by the Regents, who in turn were only

15 contracted to provide services, not maintain the physical environment of the jail’s regular inmate

16 population. However, for a public entity’s liability for a “dangerous condition” has to be predicated

17 upon its ownership or control of a piece of tangible real or personal property containing a physical

18 deficiency (in the property itself) that causes injury to the plaintiffs. (Government Code section 19 830(c); see also Cerna v. City of Oakland, 161 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1347-1348, rehearing denied, review

20 denied (2008).) Given this, plaintiffs’ claim against the Regents for maintaining a “dangerous

21 condition of public property” is a non sequitur, which therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief

22 can be granted, and is properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).

23

24

25
26
27
28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

4 While plaintiffs make no specific citation to Government Code section 830 as the ground for their Thirteenth Cause of Action, in fact, as the liability of a public entity in the State of California is solely a creature of statute, and the only statute that refers to any potential liability for a public entity for a “dangerous condition of public property” is set forth in Government Code section 830, it is quite clear that said section is the only basis upon which they could found such an action.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REGENTS AND

-6-

SOKOLOV’S MOTIONS

1266449.1

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 13 of 18

1

4. Conclusion

2

Plaintiffs’ Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action, for Civil Rights Violations are properly

3 dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) as the Regents are not a “person” within the meaning of the Civil

4 Rights Act, while their Thirteenth Cause of Action for dangerous condition of public property, is

5 property dismissed as to the Regents in that there is no “public property” that they maintained which

6 caused injury to the plaintiffs.

7

5. Conclusion

8

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action each fail to

9 state claims against both defendants Regents and Sokolov upon which relief can be granted. Given

10 this, each should be dismissed as to the Regents and Sokolov pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6), while

11 plaintiffs Thirteenth Cause of Action fails to state an adequate claim against defendant Regents.

12 C. 13 14

VARIOUS PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT SHOULD BE STRICKEN UNDER FRCP 12(f)
1. Rule 12(f) Standard

15

Rule 12(f) empowers a Court to "strike from a pleading any redundant, immaterial,

16 impertinent, or scandalous matter" and authorizes a motion to strike such allegations as “could have

17 no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation so as to avoid the expenditure of time and

18 money that it must arise in litigating spurius issues by dispensing of those issues at the initial stages of

19 the litigation.” (Wilkerson v. Butler, 229 F.R.D. 166, 170 (E.D. Cal 2007).) A ‘redundant’ matter

20 within the meaning of FRC 12(f) consists of allegations that constitute a needless repetition of other

21 allegations or which are foreign to the issue to be denied, while an ‘immaterial’ matter has no essential

22 or important relationship to the claim for relief, and/or consist of a statement of unnecessary

23 particulars such as superfluous historical allegations. (Wilkerson v. Butler, supra.) Similarly, an

24 “impertinent” allegation is one which is neither responsive to the issues involved in the act and which

25 could not be put in issue or given in evidence between the parties because they do not pertain or are

26 unnecessary to the issues in question. (Wilkerson v. Butler, supra.) Similarly, a “scandalous” matter

27 improperly casts a derogatory light on someone, usually a party and which otherwise bears no possible

28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

relation to the controversy, or which may cause the objecting party prejudice. (Wilkerson v. Butler,

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REGENTS AND

-7-

SOKOLOV’S MOTIONS

1266449.1

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 14 of 18

1 supra.) Utilizing these standards, and each of them, it is clear that various portions of plaintiffs’

2 Second Amended Complaint are property stricken under Rule 12(f).

3

2. Paragraphs 21-23 Are Properly Stricken As Immaterial and Impertinent

4

In Paragraphs 21-23, plaintiffs allege the circumstances of a head injury that Mr. Mayfield

5 suffered long before the events in question, going into great detail about the circumstances of an

6 alleged high school “football injury,” Mr. Mayfield’s ostensible accolades as a high school athlete and

7 student, and his subsequent downward course after high school. However interesting all of this

8 alleged history may be, it is totally unrelated to the events in question, and occurred five to six years

9 prior to any of the events in question. Each and every one of these allegations is totally extraneous to

10 any of the potential issues in this litigation. Thus, it is clear that whether or not Mr. Mayfield was a

11 stellar athlete and scholar in high school, whether he suffered an injury in a football game, or whether

12 his academic progress in high school suffered as a result of a head injury that he suffered during the

13 course of high school athletics, has absolutely nothing to do with the issues in this litigation. Put

14 simply, while a plaintiff’s (“premorbid”) condition is certainly an issue in litigation such as this, the

15 “premorbid” condition in issue is that that existed at the point in time the alleged tortious activity

16 began, Mr. Mayfield’s arrest and incarceration on June 5, 2011, i.e., many years after the events

17 detailed in the paragraphs in question. Put another way, how he may have been before he received an

18 injury that has nothing to do with and which occurred long before the events in question, is totally

19 extraneous to this litigation – the only thing properly at issue is his physical and mental state at the

20 time that the events in question began. Given this, Paragraphs 21, 22, and 23 are therefore properly

21 stricken as immaterial and impertinent.

22

3. Paragraph 66 Is Properly Stricken As Immaterial, Impertinent And Scandalous

23

In Paragraph 66, plaintiffs’ allege that on one occasion, an unnamed mentally ill inmate

24 (obviously not plaintiff) was physically restrained for 24 hours without food, water or treatment while

25 unstated staff waited for a response from an out-of-state doctor who was not returning calls. Clearly,

26 this matter has nothing to do with the present plaintiff and is inserted in the complaint solely for the

27 prejudicial effect it casts on the defendants. This effect is totally unfounded for a variety of reasons.

28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

First, and most importantly, this unstated inmate is clearly not plaintiff, and the allegations therefore

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REGENTS AND

-8-

SOKOLOV’S MOTIONS

1266449.1

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 15 of 18

1 concern actions completely outside of those framed within the present compliant. Second, the actions

2 themselves are extraneous to any of the charging allegations of this complaint – they are simply

3 “apples and oranges” of a different type and quality than the acts, errors and omissions alleged in this

4 complaint. Third, they are obviously prejudicial, and meant to be such. Given this, Paragraph 66 is

5 properly stricken as immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous.

6

4. Paragraph 68 Of The Complaint Is Properly Stricken As Immaterial And

Scandalous

7

In Paragraph 68 of the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege on “information and

8

belief” that shortly before his alleged suicide attempt (of July 17, 2013) defendants placed a social

9

worker with no nursing training in the position of program director for the psychiatric unit at the

10

Sacramento County Jail, and that despite lacking such, began administering medications to unnamed

11

third party inmates resulting in repeated medication errors. Saliently absent from this allegation is that

12

such actions resulted in any medication error as to this plaintiff - that, of course, is why they are not

13

made directly, but instead on information and belief. Again, the matter is totally outside of the issues

14

framed within the present pleadings, and is being inserted into the complaint solely for its prejudicial

15

effect against the defendants, by alleging that there is unsubstantiated information that may indicate

16

that defendants may have put an unqualified person in a position where they may have caused harm to

17

other inmates in a manner completely unassociated with any of the acts, errors and omissions that

18

allegedly occurred as to the present plaintiff. Given this, this entire paragraph is properly stricken as

19

immaterial, impertinent and scandalous. (Wilkerson v. Butler, supra.)

20

5. That Portion Of Paragraph 131, Appearing At Page 29:23-24, To Wit: “And

21

Plaintiffs James A. Mayfield (Sr.) And Terri Mayfield” Are Properly Stricken as

Immaterial.

22

23

Paragraph 131 is contained within the plaintiffs’ medical malpractice claim against defendants

24 Regents and Sokolov. In Paragraph 131, they claim that as a proximate cause of that negligence,

25 plaintiff James Mayfield’s father and step-mother (“plaintiffs James A. Mayfield and Terri Mayfield”)

26 suffered injury and damage. The father and step-mother’s claim do not stem from any damage to their

27 own persons but instead sound in the loss of their filial consortium with their son/step-son. Loss of

28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

filial consortium is, however, not recognized as a proper adjunct of a medical malpractice claim under

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REGENTS AND

-9-

SOKOLOV’S MOTIONS

1266449.1

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 16 of 18

1 California law. (Martinez v. County of Los Angeles 186 Cal.App.3d 884, 893-894 (1986).) Similarly,

2 the plaintiff parents’ claim suffers a fatal flaw in the fact that they can also not make a seasonable

3 claim sounding in “bystander liability” - they were obviously not even aware of the alleged negligent

4 actions of the defendants until long after they had occurred. (See, SAC ¶ 78.) Given this, there is also

5 no direct or bystander liability that can be alleged on behalf of either of the plaintiff parents arising

6 from defendants’ alleged acts of medical negligence. (Justice v. Atchison 19 Cal.3d 564-585 (1977);

7 Hurlbut v. Sonora Community Hospital 207 Cal.3d 388, 399-401 (1989); see also, Morton v. 8 Thousand Oaks Surgical Hospital 187 Cal.App.4th 926, 931 (2010) (adult children could not maintain

9 claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress arising out of postoperative failure to respond to

10 their mother’s worsening condition given lack of awareness of the cause of contemporaneous aware of

11 the cause of those injuries).)

12

The plaintiff parents are not proper party plaintiffs in a medical negligence action under

13 California law, either under a “direct victim” or a loss of “filial relationship” theory of liability. Given

14 this, that portion of the allegations contained in Paragraph 131 positing them as party plaintiffs in the

15 medical negligence claim against the defendants is properly stricken as immaterial and impertinent.

16

6. Plaintiffs’ Eleventh (Negligence) And Fifteenth (Negligent Infliction Of Emotional

Distress) Causes Of Action Are Properly Stricken As To Defendants Regents And

17

Sokolov

18

Plaintiffs’ allegations against the Regents and defendant Sokolov arise due to the claimed acts,

19 errors and omissions committed by those defendants against plaintiff James Mayfield, Jr., while

20 providing psychiatric care to him under the Regents’ contract with the County to provide mental

21 health services to the County Jail inmates. It is a classic claim of medical/mental healthcare

22 negligence. However, plaintiffs then make a general negligence claim against these defendants

23 (Eleventh Cause of Action) as well as claim that these defendants’ alleged professional negligence

24 negligently caused them emotional distress (Fifteenth Cause of Action – NIED), based upon these

25 same charging allegations. However, negligent infliction of emotional distress is simply a species of

26 negligence, while plaintiffs’ negligence claim itself is totally subsumed within their medical

27 malpractice claim against these defendants. Given this, plaintiffs’ general negligence (Eleventh Cause

28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REGENTS AND SOKOLOV’S MOTIONS 1266449.1

-10-

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 17 of 18

1 of Action) as well as their NIED claims are totally redundant (Fifteenth Cause of Action) and are

2 properly stricken as to these defendants. (Wilkerson v. Butler, supra. at page 171.)

3

7. Plaintiffs’ Seventh Prayer, For Restitution, Is Properly Stricken As Impertinent

And Immaterial

4

5

After alleging a classic claim for personal injury damages by and through their fifteen various

6 causes of action, plaintiffs then set forth a prayer for relief for “restitution” (Prayer No. 7, appearing at

7 page 36:28), which has nothing to do with any of the charging allegations and which is totally outside

8 any form of relief that could ever be afforded them – there are no allegations that any monies were

9 given by any of the plaintiffs to any of the various defendants, much less that the defendants received

10 any remuneration of any type from any of the plaintiffs. There is, simply put, nothing to base a claim

11 of restitution on. Given that this form of relief is not recoverable under any of the allegations of the

12 Second Amended Complaint, it is properly stricken as a matter of law. (Wilkerson v. Butler, supra, at

13 page 172; Schwarzer, et al., California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (2005),

14 attacking the pleadings, ¶9-389 and 9-390, page 9-97.)

15

8. That Portion Of Plaintiffs’ 8th Prayer, For Injunctive And/or Declaratory Relief,

Is Properly Stricken As Impertinent and Immaterial

16

17

Plaintiffs’ 8th Prayer, while ostensibly in the form of the usual incantation appearing at the end

18 of a pleading (i.e., “for such other and further relief as may be proper in the circumstances”) actually

19 is much more – it contains a prayer for injunctive and/or declaratory relief. However, just as with 20 their 7th Prayer, there is nothing in the present Second Amended Complaint that pleads any action by

21 this plaintiff for injunctive and/or declaratory relief. Thus, the present pleadings indicate that Mr.

22 Mayfield, suing on his own behalf, has not been incarcerated at the County Jail for almost 2 years, and

23 there is no indication that he is likely to be so incarcerated at any time in the future. Given this, there

24 is no reason for any type of injunction to issue against continuing or threatened actions by the

25 defendants against him: he thus simply completely fails to show any potential entitlement to any form

26 of injunctive relief. Similarly, he pleads no basis for declaratory relief, as no present or continuing

27 controversy between he and the defendants is pleaded either. This is, in sum, an action for money

28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

damage relief for a series of actions that ended long ago, and which have no ability to repeat as to the

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REGENTS AND SOKOLOV’S MOTIONS 1266449.1

-11-

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 42-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 18 of 18

1 plaintiffs, or any of them. Given this, any prayer for injunctive and/or declaratory relief simply has no

2 basis in the pleadings, and is simply impertinent and immaterial and properly stricken as a matter of 3 law. (Wilkerson v. Butler, supra, at page 172; Schwarzer, et al., supra.)5

4

IV.

CONCLUSION

5

6

For the foregoing reasons, and each of them, these defendants’ various 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and

7 12(f) motions should be granted.

8 DATED: April 20, 2015 9

WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD & BIRNEY, LLP

10

By:

//Robert F. Tyler, Jr.

11

ROBERT F. TYLER, JR.

Attorneys for Defendants

12

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA and GREGORY SOKOLOV,

13

M.D., sued in his individual and official capacity

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
28
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO

5 To the extent that plaintiffs argue that they are seeking equitable or declaratory relief, that intention no way appears on the face of the SAC, thus rendering it fatally uncertain under FRCP 12(e).

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS REGENTS AND SOKOLOV’S MOTIONS 1266449.1

-12-

2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

 
 Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 1 of 40

1

Barbara Enloe Hadsell, Esq. [S.B. #086021] Dan Stormer, Esq. [S.B. #101967]

2

Joshua Piovia-Scott, Esq. [S.B. #222364] Mohammad Tajsar, Esq. [S.B. #280152]

3

HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue

4

Pasadena, California 91103 Tel: (626) 585-9600/Fax: (626) 577-7079

5

Emails: bhadsell@hadsellstormer.com dstormer@hadsellstormer.com

6

jps@hadsellstormer.com mtajsar@hadsellstormer.com

FILED

7 Lori Rifkin, Esq. [S.B. # 244081]

8

RIFKIN LAW OFFICE P.O. Box 19169

9

Oakland, California 94619 Telephone: (415) 685-3591

10 Email: lrifkin@rifkinlawoffice.com

May 15, 2015
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

JAMES JOSHUA MAYFIELD,

Case No.2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

14

JAMES ALLISON MAYFIELD, JR. and TERRI MAYFIELD,

[Assigned to the Honorable John A. Mendez – Courtroom 6]

15

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,

FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR

16

JURY TRIAL

17 18 19

vs. IVAN OROZCO, in his individual capacity, SHERIFF SCOTT JONES, in his individual and official capacity, JAMES LEWIS, in his individual and

1. Excessive Force (Fourth Amendment) 2. Unreasonable Search and Seizure
(Fourth Amendment) 3. Failure to Provide Medical Care
(Fourteenth Amendment) 4. Failure to Protect from Harm

official capacity, RICK PATTISON, in (Fourteenth Amendment)

20 21 22 23

his individual and official capacity, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM, DR. GREGORY SOKOLOV, in his individual capacity, DR. CHARLES SCOTT, in his individual capacity, DR. ROBERT HALES, in his individual

5. Deprivation of Substantive Due Process (First and Fourteenth Amendments)
6. Disability Discrimination (ADA and Rehabilitation Act)
7. Medical Malpractice 8. Failure to Furnish Medical Care 9. Assault 10. Battery

24 capacity, and Does 1-5,

11. Civil Code §52.1

12. Negligence

25

Defendants.

13. Negligent Supervision, Training, Hiring, and Retention

26

14. Dangerous Condition on Public Property

27

15. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

16. Negligent Infliction of Emotional

28

Distress

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 2 of 40

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. On July 17, 2013, 20-year-old James Mayfield, a pre-trial detainee at

3 the Sacramento County Jail, attempted to commit suicide by diving head first from

4 his bunk bed to the floor of his cell. Although he did not die, he suffered a

5 significant spinal injury that left him paralyzed and cognitively impaired for the rest

6 of his life. Defendants were aware that Mr. Mayfield had been diagnosed with

7 serious mental illness. Defendants had also identified Mr. Mayfield as a suicide

8 risk, knew that he had repeatedly attempted to commit suicide while in Jail, and

9 were aware that he had specifically threatened to jump off his bunk to do so.

10 Defendants also knew that Mr. Mayfield had repeatedly been subjected to physical

11 attacks at the Jail, including an assault by Jail correctional officers and sexual

12 assaults by other inmates. Despite this knowledge, Defendants failed to provide Mr.

13 Mayfield with appropriate mental health care, failed to take adequate steps to

14 protect him from harm, including self-harm, and, in fact, affirmatively placed Mr.

15 Mayfield in danger by placing him in a cell with known suicide hazards.

16

2. Defendant Ivan Orozco, a one of the Jail’s correctional officers,

17 brutally assaulted Mr. Mayfield on November 22, 2012, repeatedly kicking and

18 kneeing him in the head while he lay on the ground. After the assault, Mr.

19 Mayfield’s already tenuous mental health deteriorated even faster. He smeared his

20 own feces all over his face and body and was found with a plastic deodorant

21 container lodged in his rectum. He reported that he had been repeatedly raped by

22 other inmates. Defendants remained deliberately indifferent to Mr. Mayfield’s

23 mental health needs and potential for suicide despite his worsening condition,

24 including affirmatively preventing his admission to the Jail’s psychiatric unit, and

25 their conduct culminated in his suicide attempt and subsequent paralysis.

26

3. Mr. Mayfield was released from Jail soon after his suicide attempt and

27 injury. He now lives with his parents, whose relationship with their son has not only

28 been significantly impacted by his permanent psychological and physical

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-1-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 3 of 40

1 impairments, but who are required by California law to provide him with the 24

2 hour-a-day care that he will need for the rest of his life.

3

JURISDICTION

4

4. This Complaint seeks damages for violations of the civil rights,

5 privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth and Fourteenth

6 Amendments of the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and

7 1988, and for violations of California state law.

8

5. This Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

9 1331 and 1343.

10

6. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims

11 asserted herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because the claims form part of the

12 same case or controversy arising under the United States Constitution and federal

13 law.

14

VENUE

15

7. Plaintiffs’ claims arose in the County of Sacramento, California.

16 Venue therefore lies in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

17 1391(b)(2).

18

PARTIES

19

8. Plaintiff James Joshua Mayfield is a 22-year-old citizen of the United

20 States who was incarcerated at the Sacramento County Jail in Sacramento,

21 California, at the time of the incidents described herein. Mr. Mayfield currently

22 resides in San Joaquin County, California with his parents.

23

9. Plaintiff James Allison Mayfield, Jr. is the father of James Joshua

24 Mayfield. He is suing individually for violations of civil rights under the First and

25 Fourteenth Amendments.

26

10. Plaintiff Terri Lynn Mayfield is the stepmother of James Joshua

27 Mayfield. She is suing individually for violations of civil rights under the First and

28 Fourteenth Amendment.

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-2-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 4 of 40

1

11. Defendant County of Sacramento is a public entity, duly organized and

2 existing under the laws of the State of California. Under its authority, Defendant

3 County of Sacramento operates and manages the Sacramento County Jail and is and

4 was at all relevant times mentioned herein responsible for the actions and/or

5 inactions and the policies, procedures, and practices/customs of the Sacramento

6 County Sheriff’s Department and the Sacramento County Jail, and each entity’s

7 respective employees and/or agents. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department

8 operates the Sacramento County Jail, and is and was responsible for ensuring the

9 provision of emergency and medical and mental health care services to all

10 Sacramento County Jail inmates.

11

12. Defendant Ivan Orozco is, and was at all relevant times mentioned

12 herein, an officer in the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office. While on shift at the

13 Jail, he was and is responsible for the safety and security of inmates and ensuring

14 that their constitutional rights are protected. On November 22, 2012, Defendant

15 Orozco assaulted Mr. Mayfield and violated his constitutional rights. Defendant

16 Orozco is being sued in his individual capacity.

17

13. Defendant Scott Jones is, and was at all relevant times mentioned

18 herein, the Sheriff of the County of Sacramento, the highest position in the

19 Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department. As Sheriff, Defendant Jones is and was

20 responsible for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline,

21 counseling, and control of all Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department custodial

22 employees and/or agents. Defendant Jones is and was charged by law with the

23 administration of the Sacramento County Jail, and is responsible for safety and

24 security of inmates housed at the Jail. Defendant Jones also is and was responsible

25 for the promulgation of the policies and procedures and allowance of the

26 practices/customs pursuant to which the acts of the Sacramento County Sheriff’s

27 Department alleged herein were committed. Defendant Jones is being sued in his

28 individual and official capacities.

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-3-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 5 of 40

1

14. Defendant James Lewis is, and was at all times relevant herein, the

2 Sacramento County Chief of Corrections. Defendant Lewis is being sued in his

3 individual and official capacities.

4

15. Defendant Rick Pattison is, and was at all times relevant herein, the

5 Sacramento County Commander of the Main Jail Division. Defendant Pattison is

6 being sued in his individual and official capacities.

7

16. Defendant University of California Davis Health System runs the Jail

8 Psychiatric Service, which contracts with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s

9 Department to provide inpatient and outpatient mental health services to inmates

10 incarcerated in the Sacramento County Jail.

11

17. Defendant Dr. Gregory Sokolov, M.D. is a Health Sciences Clinical

12 Professor at the University of California at Davis Department of Psychiatry and

13 Behavioral Sciences and is the Medical Director of the Sacramento County’s Jail

14 Psychiatric Service. Dr. Sokolov is responsible for provision of mental health

15 services at the Jail, the policies, procedures, and practices of the Jail Psychiatric

16 Service, and the supervision, discipline, and training of Jail Psychiatric Services

17 staff. Defendant Sokolov is being sued in his individual capacity.

18

18. Defendant Dr. Charles L. Scott, M.D. is a Professor of Clinical

19 Psychiatry in the University of California Davis Department of Psychiatry and

20 Behavioral Sciences, the Chief of the University of California Davis Division of

21 Psychiatry and the Law, and Director of the Forensic Psychiatry Residence

22 Program. In these roles, Dr. Scott oversees and is responsible for the

23 administration, policies, procedures, and practices of the Jail Psychiatric Service,

24 which contracts with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department to provide

25 inpatient and outpatient mental health services it inmates incarcerated in the

26 Sacramento County Jail. Dr. Scott is also responsible for the supervision and

27 discipline of University of California Davis staff and employees who work therein.

28 Defendant Scott is being sued in his individual capacity.

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-4-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 6 of 40

1

19. Defendant Dr. Robert E. Hales, M.D. is the Chair of the Department of

2 Psychiatry and Behavioral Services for the University of California Davis. In this

3 position, Dr. Hales oversees and is responsible for the administration, policies,

4 procedures, and practices of the Jail Psychiatric Service, which contracts with the

5 Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department to provide inpatient and outpatient mental

6 health services it inmates incarcerated in the Sacramento County Jail. Dr. Hales is

7 also responsible for the supervision and discipline of University of California Davis

8 staff and employees who work therein. Defendant Hales is being sued in his

9 individual capacity.

10

20. Defendants Does 1-5 are custody and/or medical staff at Sacramento

11 County Jail who were responsible for the safety and security of Mr. Mayfield

12 and/or providing him with adequate health treatment. Defendants Does 1-5

13 supervised and/or participated in the events complained of herein. At the present

14 time, the identities of Does 1-5 are unknown and not discoverable to Plaintiffs.

15 Plaintiffs will substitute the true names of Does 1-5 when Plaintiffs are able to

16 ascertain their identities through discovery. Does 1-5 are sued in their individual

17 capacities.

18

21. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times

19 mentioned in this Complaint, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents,

20 employees, servants, joint venturers, partners and/or co-conspirators of the other

21 Defendants named in this Complaint and that at all times, each of the Defendants

22 was acting within the course and scope of said relationship with Defendants.

23

FACUAL ALLEGATIONS

24

22. James Allison Mayfield, Jr. is the father of James Joshua Mayfield. He

25 has held a California State license as painter for 32 years, ran a successful painting

26 contracting business, and held a leadership position in his church for 15 years

27 before being forced to abandon his business and church activities to care for his

28 son. Terri Lynn Mayfield is James Joshua Mayfield’s step-mother. She has served

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-5-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 7 of 40

1 as the Choir Director in the family’s church since 2007 and previously assisted

2 James Allison Mayfield, Jr. with his painting business before the family was forced

3 to close it down. James Joshua Mayfield lived with his father, step-mother and

4 siblings in the suburbs of San Jose and was a diligent and successful student and

5 athlete before being tragically injured in a high school football game.

6 I. Mayfield Suffers a Significant Head Injury During a High School

7

Football Game and Begins to Have Mental Health Issues

8

23. On November 3, 2007, the month before he turned 15 years old, Mr.

9 Mayfield suffered a significant head injury during a high school football game. He

10 initially experienced a cerebral concussion and then minutes later suffered a series

11 of at least five grand mal seizures. He was taken to the emergency room, where

12 medical staff was unable to stabilize him and was forced to induce a coma. He was

13 eventually brought out of the coma but was never the same again.

14

24. Mr. Mayfield’s injury occurred during the last game of his freshman

15 year at Mount Pleasant High School in San Jose, California. Mr. Mayfield was

16 named the freshman player of the year and chosen for the all-league team. The year

17 before, he had been selected as the MVP of his school’s basketball team and the

18 player of the year in the basketball league. In addition to his athletic success, Mr.

19 Mayfield had been a diligent student and was carrying a 3.4 grade point average at

20 the time of the head injury.

21

25. Not only was Mr. Mayfield unable to participate in organized sports

22 after his head injury but his grades started to go down and he began having

23 behavioral issues that he had never had before. By the end of his freshman year, his

24 grade point average had plummeted to 2.3. He was depressed, angry and aggressive

25 in ways he had never been before. His attention, concentration and memory were

26 significantly impaired, and he expressed suicidal thoughts for the first time.

27 Although he had never previously had issues with the law or his school, he was

28 suspended from school and arrested for the first time in the Spring of 2008.

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-6-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 8 of 40

1

26. A psychologist who examined Mr. Mayfield in April 2008 after his

2 first arrest concluded that Mr. Mayfield had “severe” cognitive difficulties that

3 were caused by the head injury he suffered in November 2007. At the urging of the

4 psychologist, Mr. Mayfield’s parents removed him from school and hired a private

5 teacher to home school him. They also enrolled Mr. Mayfield in anger management

6 therapy, participated in weekly family therapy sessions and worked closely with

7 Mr. Mayfield’s educators to ensure he was receiving the appropriate instruction.

8

27. Mr. Mayfield’s condition continued to worsen despite his family’s

9 efforts and support. Mr. Mayfield was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic and

10 began taking low doses of psychotropic medication.

11

28. Medical records for Mr. Mayfield indicate that he attempted to

12 commit suicide on at least four separate occasions and was placed on an involuntary

13 psychiatric hold pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150

14 just prior to his incarceration in the Sacramento County Jail. Mr. Mayfield’s parents

15 provided Defendants with these medical records before the November 2012 assault

16 and the July 2013 suicide attempt.

17 II. Defendants Are Repeatedly Put on Notice that Mr. Mayfield is Suicidal

18

but Fail to Adequately Address This and His Other Mental Health Needs

19

29. Mr. Mayfield was arrested and incarcerated in the Sacramento County

20 Jail on or about June 5, 2011. Mr. Mayfield’s parents, particularly his father, visited

21 him almost every week, provided Defendants with information and records

22 regarding Mr. Mayfield’s psychiatric history and condition and worked closely with

23 his criminal defense attorneys in an attempt to make sure that Mr. Mayfield was

24 receiving appropriate treatment while in the Jail.

25

30. Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Mayfield’s serious

26 mental health needs despite repeated notice that he was suicidal and had significant

27 mental health issues, as detailed in the following paragraphs.

28 / / /

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-7-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 9 of 40

1

31. A July 7, 2011 psychiatric evaluation conducted at the request of the

2 Sacramento Superior Court summarized Mr. Mayfield’s psychiatric history,

3 including his diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and history of at least four

4 suicide attempts, and concluded that he had a “moderate to high risk of violence

5 toward himself and others in both the short and long term.” The evaluating doctor

6 further concluded that Mr. Mayfield was not competent to stand trial on the

7 criminal charges that had been brought against him, that he had no capacity to make

8 decisions about his medications or treatment, and confirmed the previous diagnoses

9 of paranoid schizophrenia.

10

32. In an August 6, 2011 report for the Superior Court, another mental

11 health professional who examined Mr. Mayfield recounted his history of self-harm

12 and documented that he “was responding to internal stimuli” and appeared to be

13 hallucinating during their interview. The psychologist confirmed that Mr. Mayfield

14 was schizophrenic and concluded that his psychiatric condition was worsening.

15

33. On or about August 13, 2011, Mr. Mayfield attempted to run away

16 from one of the deputies when the deputy was escorting him back to his cell.

17 Defendants claimed that they needed to use pepper spray in order to control Mr.

18 Mayfield and that he told them that “I am hearing voices and the voices told me to

19 take your keys and run so that I could escape.” Defendants’ records also indicate

20 that Mr. Mayfield informed them that he felt suicidal.

21

34. On August 15, 2011, Defendants identified Mr. Mayfield as a danger

22 to himself and “gravely disabled.” He was sent to the Jail’s inpatient psychiatric

23 unit and then discharged back to the general population on August 18. Defendants’

24 records indicate that Mr. Mayfield did not receive any mental health treatment

25 between August 18 and September 3, 2011.

26

35. On September 3, 2011, Mr. Mayfield again informed Defendants that

27 he was “having suicidal thoughts” and “wanted to hurt himself.” Defendants

28 responded by handcuffing him and placing him in a classroom.

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-8-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 10 of 40

1

36. On information and belief, Defendants’ primary practice for

2 addressing potentially suicidal inmates is to handcuff them in a classroom until they

3 can be assessed by qualified psychiatric staff. This classroom is inadequately

4 equipped to house suicidal inmates and, among other things, does not contain

5 running water, a bed or a toilet. Due to understaffing, mentally ill inmates,

6 including Mr. Mayfield, are repeatedly subjected to this process and regularly spend

7 long periods of time restrained in the classroom waiting for psychiatric treatment

8 after expressing suicidal ideations. On information and belief, suicidal inmates are

9 regularly restrained in the classroom for as long as two days, a strategy Defendants

10 refer to as “classroom therapy,” whereby Defendants seek to pressure the inmates to

11 deny they are suicidal so that they can be denied admission to the psychiatric unit

12 and returned to the general population without treatment.

13

37. Although Sacramento County’s correctional facilities had an average

14 daily population of 4,046 inmates in 2012, there are only 18 beds in the system’s

15 one inpatient Psychiatric Services Unit. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s

16 Department’s 2013 report titled “A Proactive Response to Public Safety

17 Realignment” confirms these numbers and adds that “Due to the limited capacity

18 [of the Inpatient Psychiatric Services Unit], there is often a waiting list for

19 admission to this Unit.”

20

38. Despite the fact that he continued to inform Defendants that he was

21 suicidal, Mr. Mayfield was denied psychiatric care on September 3, 2011 and

22 returned to the general population. There is no indication in Defendants’ records

23 that Mr. Mayfield received any additional treatment or was evaluated by a Doctor

24 in connection with his September 3, 2011 report that he was suicidal.

25

39. On or about September 29, 2011, Mr. Mayfield was admitted to the

26 California Department of Mental Health Hospital in Napa in order to restore his

27 competency to stand trial. After receiving treatment and medication at the hospital

28 for approximately two months, Mr. Mayfield was found to be competent to stand

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-9-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 11 of 40

1 trial on November 22, 2011 and returned to the Sacramento County Jail soon

2 thereafter. The doctors in Napa diagnosed Mr. Mayfield as paranoid schizophrenic

3 and documented his hallucinations and paranoid delusions. Other than the therapy

4 and other non-medication treatment he received during the two months he spent at

5 the Napa Hospital, Defendants’ treatment of Mr. Mayfield was almost exclusively

6 limited to administering medications.

7

40. Defendants’ records indicate that Mr. Mayfield did not receive any

8 additional mental health treatment when he was returned to Sacramento County Jail

9 at the end of 2011. Without treatment, his mental health once again decompensated,

10 and on March 22, 2012, Mr. Mayfield again informed Defendants that he was

11 suicidal and then urinated on an electrical outlet and started a fire.

12

41. On March 23, 2012, Mr. Mayfield was admitted to the Jail’s inpatient

13 psychiatric facility on the basis that he was a danger to himself. Mr. Mayfield was

14 housed in the psychiatric unit from March 23, 2012 to April 24, 2012. Jail deputies

15 admit to striking Mr. Mayfield 3-4 times in the head and face on March 25, while

16 he was housed in the psychiatric unit, claiming that Mr. Mayfield lunged at them.

17 There is no record indicating that he was examined for injury as a result of this

18 attack or that he received any additional treatment.

19

42. On May 9, 2012, approximately two weeks after Mr. Mayfield had

20 been released from the psychiatric unit, Jail staff reported that Mr. Mayfield

21 informed them that he was “hearing voices telling him to jump/bang his head/kill

22 himself.” He told psychiatric unit personnel that voices were “telling him to jump

23 off the upper tier . . . [and that] he cannot resist these voices.” Mr. Mayfield was

24 again identified as a danger to himself and “gravely disabled” and was placed in a

25 safety suit and handcuffed in a Jail classroom. He informed Jail personnel that he

26 had attempted suicide on 27 previous occasions.

27

43. Mr. Mayfield was admitted to the psychiatric unit on May 10, 2012.

28 On May 11, 2012, a psychiatrist from the UC Davis Department of Psychiatry

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-10-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 12 of 40

1 submitted a psychiatric evaluation of Mr. Mayfield at the request of the Superior

2 Court. This evaluation states that Mr. Mayfield reported that he had suicidal

3 ideations and concluded that he had a history of suicidal ideation and was a

4 “moderate suicide risk.” The psychiatrist diagnosed Mr. Mayfield as schizophrenic

5 with hallucinations and paranoid delusions.

6

44. On May 14, 2012, Defendants observed Mr. Mayfield repeatedly

7 tearing his own foreskin and pounding the door in his cell. On May 15, Mr.

8 Mayfield again informed Jail personnel that voices had been telling him to jump off

9 the tier and kill himself. In a psychiatric progress note on the same date, the

10 evaluating doctor noted that Mr. Mayfield had engaged in self-injurious behavior

11 the day before, that his “acute suicide risk is high” and that his actions “suggest a

12 need for further observation.”

13

45. Despite the psychiatrist’s May 15, 2012 assessment that Mr. Mayfield

14 was at acute risk for harm and required further observation, Defendants discharged

15 Mr. Mayfield from the inpatient unit the very next day. On the May 16, 2012 form

16 authorizing Mr. Mayfield’s discharge from the psychiatric unit, Defendants further

17 noted that Mr. Mayfield reported that he had a “plan to jump off top tier or bang his

18 head” and that he had been hearing voices for the last three weeks telling him to kill

19 himself by jumping off the top tier. Despite this, Mr. Mayfield did not receive any

20 additional treatment and was returned to general population.

21

46. Defendants’ records indicate that on October 12, 2012, Mr. Mayfield

22 pressed his emergency cell button and informed Defendants that he was suicidal,

23 hearing voices and that he planned on choking himself to death. However,

24 Defendants did not transfer him to the psychiatric unit or place him on the waiting

25 list for the unit.

26

47. On October 13, 2012, Mr. Mayfield informed Jail personnel that he

27 had attempted suicide while housed in the psychiatric unit in May 2012 and stated

28 that he “had plans to jump off his bunk or another high place [to commit suicide] if

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-11-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 13 of 40

1 given the chance.” Defendants placed Mr. Mayfield on the waiting list for the

2 psychiatric unit.

3

48. On October 14, Mr. Mayfield continued to report that he was hearing

4 voices and had suicidal urges and Defendants concluded that he remained a danger

5 to himself.

6

49. On October 15, 2012, Jail Psychiatric Services noted that Mr. Mayfield

7 had attempted suicide at least three times previously and that the last attempt had

8 been made within the last year. Despite this knowledge, Defendants discharged Mr.

9 Mayfield from the psychiatric unit and returned him to general population that day.

10 III. Defendants Assault Mayfield

11

50. Defendant Ivan Orozco, a deputy in the Sacramento County Jail,

12 assaulted Mr. Mayfield on or about November 22, 2012.

13

51. According to Defendants’ records of the incident, Mr. Mayfield went

14 to retrieve the snack he was assigned as treatment for his diabetes at around 9:45

15 p.m. However, Mr. Mayfield was unable to open the door to enter the area where he

16 was to receive the snack and he threw his hands up and began mumbling to himself

17 in frustration. After Defendant Orozco opened the door for Mr. Mayfield,

18 Defendant Orozco pushed him to the ground. When Mr. Mayfield got up,

19 Defendant Orozco threw him back to the ground. Defendant Orozco admits that he

20 then kicked Mr. Mayfield in the face “several times” while Mr. Mayfield was on

21 the ground. Defendant Orozco further admits that after repeatedly kicking Mr.

22 Mayfield in the face, he then “kneed [Mr. Mayfield] in the head and shoulder area

23 approximately four times.” Defendants’ records indicate that the assault was

24 captured on at least two of the video cameras located in the Jail.

25

52. As a result of this incident Mayfield suffered physical injuries

26 including, but not limited to, numerous scrapes, severe bruising, and a laceration on

27 his lip which required seven stitches to close. Despite these injuries, Mr. Mayfield

28 was not hospitalized and was merely given Tylenol for the pain.

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-12-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 14 of 40

1

53. Defendants failed to assess the impact of this incident on Mr.

2 Mayfield’s mental health or provide him with any additional evaluation or

3 treatment. Defendants failed to take any additional actions even though this incident

4 included repeated strikes to Mr. Mayfield’s head and Defendants were aware that

5 his mental illness had been originally caused by a traumatic head injury.

6

54. None of the deputies involved in the assault, including Defendant

7 Orozco, required medical attention for the alleged injuries they suffered during this

8 incident.

9

55. Mr. Mayfield was charged with battery against a police officer in

10 violation of Penal Code 243(C)(2) in connection with this incident. On information

11 and belief, these charges were later dropped at the preliminary hearing after the

12 prosecutor reviewed the videos of the incident and made statements to the effect

13 that, based on the conduct of the deputies who assaulted Mr. Mayfield, she could

14 not move forward with the criminal charges against him.

15

56. On information and belief, Defendants subjected Mr. Mayfield to

16 additional retaliatory actions after this incident and the district attorney’s refusal to

17 bring criminal charges. Although his family had visited Mr. Mayfield regularly

18 after his incarceration in Sacramento, he was not allowed to have visitors for

19 approximately six weeks after the assault.

20

57. The November 2012 assault and subsequent retaliation was a breaking

21 point for Mr. Mayfield. He lost all trust in Defendants and any hope that his mental

22 health would improve while in custody.

23 IV. Mayfield’s Mental Health Continues to Deteriorate and Defendants Fail

24

to Take Appropriate Suicide Precautions

25

58. On January 22, 2013, two months after Defendants’ brutal assault on

26 Mr. Mayfield, Jail personnel reported finding Mr. Mayfield “completely covered in

27 feces from head to toe. Mayfield had feces smeared around his face, including his

28 mouth and there were small chunks of feces in his hair. . . I asked him what was

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-13-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 15 of 40

1 wrong and he told me he was suicidal.” When he was taken to wash the feces off

2 his body, Jail staff found a plastic deodorant stick lodged in his rectum.

3

59. Defendants’ records reflect that when Mr. Mayfield was asked why he

4 had covered himself in his own feces, he stated that he was trying to make himself

5 sick and that he had been “beat up bad.” Mr. Mayfield further informed Jail

6 personnel that he was “sick of living” and reported that other inmates were stealing

7 his thoughts when he slept.

8

60. After Mr. Mayfield was admitted to the psychiatric unit on or about

9 January 22, 2013, he was found sobbing in his cell and informed Jail personnel that

10 he had been “raped daily” by two other inmates. Defendants noted that Mr.

11 Mayfield was “very distraught.”

12

61. Defendants failed to provide Mr. Mayfield with any therapeutic

13 treatment or counseling to address the sexual assaults he reported and the obvious

14 effects of these assaults on Mr. Mayfield’s mental state. There is no indication in

15 the records provided by the Jail that Mr. Mayfield ever received any treatment in

16 connection with these issues, nor that Defendants investigated Mr. Mayfield’s

17 complaints of sexual assault.

18

62. Although Defendants’ records reflect that Mr. Mayfield continued to

19 express suicidal thoughts, Defendants removed him from suicide precautions on

20 January 29, 2013.

21

63. Defendants then discharged him from the psychiatric unit and returned

22 him to the general population on February 2, 2013. On information and belief, Mr.

23 Mayfield did not receive any additional treatment as a result of this disturbing

24 incident.

25

64. Less than one month after being returned to the general population,

26 Jail personnel again reported that Mr. Mayfield was expressing suicidal ideation.

27 On February 24, 2013, Mr. Mayfield informed Jail personnel that “he was suicidal .

28 . . . [and that] he tried to kill himself by sticking his head inside the toilet.” During a

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-14-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 16 of 40

1 psychiatric assessment later that day, Mr. Mayfield informed a nurse that “I was

2 contemplating putting my face in the toilet” in an attempt to take his own life. Mr.

3 Mayfield also informed staff that “I put my face in a plastic bag 6 days ago” in

4 another attempt to commit suicide. Despite these statements and Mr. Mayfield’s

5 recent history of suicide attempts at the Jail, including within the past week, the

6 evaluating nurse indicated that Mr. Mayfield did not express suicidal ideation.

7

65. In an April 24, 2013 psychiatric evaluation for Mr. Mayfield’s

8 criminal case, a forensic psychiatrist again concluded that Mr. Mayfield was not

9 competent to stand trial on the criminal charges that had been brought against him.

10 The evaluation stated that Mr. Mayfield had an “established history of violence

11 including suicidality” and an active, psychotic mental disorder. The examiner

12 further concluded that Mr. Mayfield was not malingering.

13

66. Defendants’ records indicate that on June 20, 2013, Jail personnel

14 observed him tearing and braiding his blanket. He was admitted to the psychiatric

15 unit based on suicide risk, but once again transferred back to general population on

16 June 25, less than a month before the suicide attempt that would result in his

17 paralysis.

18

67. Defendants failed to take basic precautions with inmates who were

19 suicidal and repeatedly failed to provide mentally ill inmates with adequate health

20 care throughout Mr. Mayfield’s time in the Sacramento County Jail. On

21 information and belief, this included failing to provide any treatment other than

22 medication, allowing individuals who were not licensed or trained to administer

23 medications to administer medications, improperly administering medications,

24 reducing the type of medications that were available, failing to adequately monitor

25 suicidal inmates, failing to use safety suits and other safety precautions, using

26 safety suits and other safety precautions as punishment, providing generic treatment

27 plans that were not tailored to the individual patient’s needs, over diagnosing

28 patients as malingering, and providing insufficient follow-up for patients that had

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-15-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 17 of 40

1 been admitted to the psychiatric unit. Many of these failures involved violations of,

2 or changes to, existing policies that had been put in place to require adequate

3 treatment. This inadequate treatment and insufficient follow-up resulted in repeated

4 cycling of patients, including Mr. Mayfield, into and out of the psychiatric unit.

5 Defendants’ failures also resulted in repeated suicide attempts and/or suicides,

6 including by patients that had been accused of malingering.

7

68. On one occasion, a mentally ill inmate was physically restrained for

8 almost 24 hours without food, water, treatment or medication while staff waited for

9 a response from a doctor who was in Las Vegas and not returning calls.

10

69. On information and belief, there have been at least 14 suicides, and

11 numerous other attempted suicides, in the Sacramento County Jail in the last 12

12 years.

13

70. On information and belief, starting in or about June of 2013

14 Defendants placed a social worker with no medical training in the position of

15 Program Director for the psychiatric unit at the Sacramento County Jail. Although

16 this position had previously been assigned to a registered nurse who had

17 purportedly been trained to care for patients and administer medications, the new

18 Program Director did not have even this level of training or licensure. Despite the

19 fact that she was not licensed to do so, the new Program Director began

20 administering medications to the inmates, resulting in repeated medication errors.

21 Nurses and other Jail personnel complained about this but nothing was done.

22 V. Mayfield is Placed on a “Do Not Admit” to the Psychiatric Unit List,

23

Attempts Suicide and Becomes Paralyzed

24

71. On information and belief, Defendant Gregory Sokolov, the Medical

25 Director for the County’s Jail Psychiatric Services who is responsible for

26 supervising the doctors in the psychiatric unit, placed Mr. Mayfield on a list of

27 inmates who were not to be admitted to the psychiatric unit without Dr. Sokolov’s

28 express approval. While other inmates who were not on this list could be admitted

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-16-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 18 of 40

1 to the psychiatric unit by any number of other staff members, Dr. Sokolov required

2 his personal approval for the evaluation or admission of Mr. Mayfield because he

3 found Mr. Mayfield difficult and characterized him as “malingering.” On

4 information and belief, Dr. Sokolov’s list, which was maintained on a Microsoft

5 Word document that was regularly printed out and taped to the wall in the facility,

6 was not governed by any policy or rule other than Dr. Sokolov’s personal whims.

7

72. As a result of being placed on Dr. Sokolov’s “do not admit” list, Mr.

8 Mayfield was housed in general population rather than the psychiatric unit in July

9 2013.

10

73. Mr. Mayfield was allegedly part of what Defendants call an

11 “outpatient program” in general population. Inmates in the outpatient program in

12 general population are supposed to be checked regularly and send requests for

13 medical attention, known as “kites,” to Jail staff if they are in distress.

14

74. On information and belief, Mr. Mayfield repeatedly sent “kites” to Jail

15 personnel during the weeks and days leading up to his July 17, 2013 suicide attempt

16 in which he stated that he was suicidal and asked for psychological treatment. Jail

17 personnel received these messages from Mr. Mayfield and indicated that they were

18 urgent but Defendants did not respond. Mr. Mayfield’s cries for help were ignored.

19

75. Despite having specific notice that Mr. Mayfield was considering

20 killing himself by jumping head-first onto the floor from a bunk or tier, and despite

21 knowledge of Mr. Mayfield’s extensive history of suicide attempts and subjection

22 to trauma and assault at the Jail, Defendants housed him in a general population cell

23 with a bunk bed and hard floors. Defendants kept Mr. Mayfield in this cell in July

24 2013 in spite of the kites he sent expressing suicidal ideation and requesting mental

25 health care.

26

76. On or about July 17, 2013, Mr. Mayfield apparently dove or otherwise

27 propelled himself from his bunk bed onto the floor and sustained damage to his

28 body and nervous system.

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-17-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 19 of 40

1

77. Defendants’ records indicate that at 2:04 a.m. on July 17, a Jail deputy

2 observed that Mr. Mayfield was lying on the ground in his cell. The records do not

3 indicate that the deputy made any attempt to communicate with Mr. Mayfield at

4 that time or investigate the situation further.

5

78. One hour later, at 3:05 a.m., this same deputy was conducting a routine

6 cell check when he noticed that Mr. Mayfield had not moved from the ground. Mr.

7 Mayfield informed the deputy that “I jumped off the top of my bunk head first. I

8 was trying to commit suicide. I was sick of dealing with the courts and being in jail.

9 I can’t move my arms of leg and my neck hurts.”

10

79. Mr. Mayfield was transferred to the hospital at the UC Davis, where it

11 was determined that he had sustained a spinal injury, including, but not limited to, a

12 C5 burst fracture with retropulsion leading to tetraparesis with paraplegia and

13 sensory deficits.

14

80. Defendants did not inform Mr. Mayfield’s parents of his suicide

15 attempt or injuries. His parents did not learn of this event until approximately one

16 week later when a nurse from the UC Davis hospital informed them that their son

17 had been injured and was being treated there. Mr. Mayfield’s father and step-

18 mother took turns spending time with him in the hospital and made sure that one of

19 them was there with him at all times.

20

81. After Mr. Mayfield’s parents learned of Mr. Mayfield’s injuries and

21 had the opportunity to review the treatment he was receiving, including

22 medications, they raised concerns with the medical staff at UC Davis regarding the

23 high dosages and types of psychotropic medications that he was being given. On or

24 around August 21, 2013, Mr. Mayfield’s parents met with the medical staff at UC

25 Davis, who informed them that UC Davis had continued the same dosages and

26 medications that Mr. Mayfield was prescribed at Sacramento County Jail. The UC

27 Davis medical staff informed Mr. Mayfield’s parents that these medications and/or

28 dosages were, in fact, inappropriate, and that they would be adjusted. On

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-18-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 20 of 40

1 information and belief, this inappropriate administration of psychotropic

2 medications by Defendants to Mr. Mayfield is known to cause serious side effects,

3 including suicidal thoughts and ideation.

4

82. Mr. Mayfield’s injuries mean that he is bed-ridden and unable to feed,

5 clean, care for himself, or perform other activities of daily living. He now requires

6 constant intensive care.

7

83. Following Mr. Mayfield’s injuries, Defendants dropped most of the

8 charges against him, allowed him to plead no contest to one count of felony

9 robbery, gave him credit for the more than two years he had spent at the

10 Sacramento County Jail and released him to the custody of his father and step-

11 mother with the express understanding that they would assume all of the

12 responsibility for his medical care.

13

84. In order to provide the necessary care for Mr. Mayfield, Mr.

14 Mayfield’s father closed his painting business and resigned the leadership position

15 he had held for more than 15 years at his church. James and/or Terri Mayfield now

16 dedicate themselves full-time or nearly full-time to their son’s care. The family had

17 to purchase medical equipment that would allow Mr. Mayfield to live at their home,

18 including a hospital bed, oxygen dispenser and a wheelchair. Before his discharge

19 from the hospital, James and Terri Mayfield trained with nurses there for 2-4 hours

20 a day for 8 weeks, learning, among other things, how to perform Mr. Mayfield’s

21 bowel care, attach and remove his catheter, prevent bed sores and infections, and

22 administer his numerous medication injections. Mr. Mayfield’s father and

23 stepmother are now his full-time caregivers and essentially devote 24 hours a day to

24 their son’s medical needs. After repeatedly checking on Mr. Mayfield and adjusting

25 his medication during the night, the day begins at 7:30 a.m. when James and/or

26 Terri checks and administers Mr. Mayfield’s medication, prepares and feeds him

27 his breakfast, changes his diaper and catheter, dresses him, stretches, massages and

28 exercises Mr. Mayfield, monitors blood sugar and urine level in urine collection

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-19-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 21 of 40

1 bag, and engages in other activities necessary to for the day. This regimen takes

2 place every day and lasts from morning until late into the evening, averaging more

3 than fourteen hours of direct care per day. When one parent is outside of the house

4 or otherwise needs to be relieved from performing caregiving duties, the other

5 parent must perform all of these services. James and/or Terri also take care of

6 scheduling all of Mr. Mayfield’s medical, mental health, and rehabilitative

7 appointments, tracking and ordering prescriptions and supplies, and

8 communications with service providers.

9

85. Mr. Mayfield entered the Sacramento County Jail at 18 years old, fully

10 capable of most physical activities. He could walk, run, jump, skip and dance.

11 When Defendants discharged Mr. Mayfield from their custody two and a half years

12 later, he was paralyzed from his neck down and unable to even feed himself or

13 walk.

14

86. The lack of appropriate mental health treatment provided at the Jail

15 combined with the physical and psychological abuse to which Defendants subjected

16 him severely exacerbated Mr. Mayfield’s mental illness, and led to the repeated

17 decompensation of his mental health, and, ultimately, to the suicide attempt that left

18 him paralyzed and further traumatized.

19

87. As a result of Defendants’ actions and omissions, Mr. Mayfield has

20 experienced and will continue to experience extreme pain and suffering and loss of

21 enjoyment of life. As a further result of Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Mayfield has and

22 will continue to incur millions of dollars in expenses for lost wages, medical care,

23 and assistance with daily living.

24

88. Mr. Mayfield’s injuries and the constant care he now requires have

25 been devastating for his parents and required them to put their lives aside and spend

26 basically all of their time, energy and limited financial resources caring for him. As

27 a result of Defendants’ actions and inactions, Mr. Mayfield’s parents have also

28 experienced and will continue to experience pain, suffering, and financial hardship.

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-20-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 22 of 40

1

EXHUASTION OF PRE-LAWSUIT PROCEDURES

2

FOR STATE LAW CLAIMS

3

89. Plaintiff filed timely governmental tort claims with Defendant County

4 of Sacramento regarding the November 22, 2012 assault on May 22, 2013 and

5 regarding the July 17, 2013 suicide attempt on January 16, 2014. By

6 correspondence dated May 29, 2013 and February 5, 2014, respectively, the County

7 of Sacramento rejected these governmental tort claims.

8

CAUSES OF ACTION

9

First Cause of Action

10

Excessive Force in Violation of the Fourth Amendment of United States

11

Constitution (42 U.S.C. §1983)

12 (Plaintiff James Joshua Mayfield against Defendants Orozco, Jones, Does 1-5,

13

and County of Sacramento)

14

90. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

15 set forth herein.

16

91. The acts of Defendants relating to the November 2012 incident

17 deprived Mr. Mayfield of his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United

18 States Constitution by utilizing excessive force upon him.

19

92. The force used by Defendant Orozco against Mr. Mayfield was

20 unjustified and excessive.

21

93. All of the acts of Defendants and the persons involved were done

22 under color and pretense of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, official

23 policies, official procedures, and usages of the County of Sacramento.

24

94. Various deputies, directly or indirectly, participated in the affirmative

25 acts of others, with the result that Mr. Mayfield was injured.

26

95. On information and belief, Mr. Mayfield alleges that the County of

27 Sacramento has an inadequate policy of supervising sheriff’s deputies and has not

28 adequately trained its deputies so as to prevent the use of unlawful force such as

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-21-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 23 of 40

1 that described above.

2

96. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Mayfield

3 suffered humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, mental anguish, fear, anxiety, loss

4 of reputation, emotional distress, and loss of his liberty and freedom.

5

97. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

6 disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiff of

7 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

8 to deter such conduct in the future.

9

Second Cause of Action

10 Unreasonable Search and Seizure in Violation of the Fourth Amendment of

11

United States Constitution (42 U.S.C. §1983)

12 (Plaintiff James Joshua Mayfield against Defendants Orozco, Jones, Does 1-5,

13

and County of Sacramento)

14

98. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

15 set forth herein.

16

99. The acts of Defendants relating to the November 2012 incident

17 deprived Mr. Mayfield of his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United

18 States Constitution by effectuating an unreasonable search and/or seizure of him.

19

100. Defendant Orozco’s actions against Mr. Mayfield were unreasonable,

20 and effectuated a search and/or seizure of Mr. Mayfield’s person in violation of the

21 Fourth Amendment.

22

101. All of the acts of Defendants and the persons involved were done

23 under color and pretense of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, official

24 policies, official procedures, and usages of the County of Sacramento.

25

102. Various deputies, directly or indirectly, participated in the affirmative

26 acts of others, with the result that Mayfield was injured.

27

103. On information and belief, Mr. Mayfield alleges that the County of

28 Sacramento has an inadequate policy of supervising sheriff’s deputies and has not

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-22-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 24 of 40

1 adequately trained its deputies so as to prevent the use of unlawful force such as

2 that described above.

3

104. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Mayfield

4 suffered humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, mental anguish, fear, anxiety, loss

5 of reputation, emotional distress, and loss of his liberty and freedom.

6

105. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

7 disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiff of

8 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

9 to deter such conduct in the future.

10

Third Cause of Action

11

Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical and Mental Health Needs in

12 Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of United States Constitution (42

13

U.S.C. §1983)

14 (Plaintiff James Joshua Mayfield against Defendants Jones, Lewis, Pattison,

15 County of Sacramento, Dr. Gregory Sokolov, Dr. Charles Scott, Dr. Robert

16

Hales, and Does 1-5)

17

106. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

18 set forth herein.

19

107. The County of Sacramento and the University of California at Davis’

20 policies, practices, and procedure deprived Mr. Mayfield of his rights under the

21 Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, including, without limitation, the right

22 to adequate medical and mental health care. This conduct represents a policy and/or

23 practice of deliberate indifference towards the needs of inmates.

24

108. On numerous occasions prior to July 17, 2013, Defendants were

25 informed and knew that Mr. Mayfield routinely held suicidal ideations, was

26 routinely gravely disabled, and was routinely an immediate danger to himself.

27 However, Defendants failed to administer standard and necessary medical and

28 mental health treatment to Mr. Mayfield before, during, and after these episodes.

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-23-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 25 of 40

1 Defendants also failed to properly classify and house Mr. Mayfield based on his

2 serious health needs.

3

109. The policies, procedures, and protocols which Defendants had in place

4 and which were administered by personnel at the Jail related to mental health

5 treatment and suicide prevention were legally and medically insufficient to protect

6 Mr. Mayfield from suicide and harm. For instance,

7

a. After having specifically noted in the chart that Mr. Mayfield was

8

considering killing himself by jumping head-first onto the floor,

9

Defendants forced Mr. Mayfield to live in a room with a bunk bed and

10

hard floors in which he suffered injury. Defendants should have taken

11

steps to mitigate or eliminate these dangers. These and other physical

12

characteristics of the room constituted unreasonably dangerous

13

premises.

14

b. Mr. Mayfield reported his suicidal ideations to Jail personnel on many

15

occasions. However, Defendants’ only response was to isolate Mr.

16

Mayfield in restraints in a classroom or the psychiatric unit, without

17

providing necessary clinical treatment, and then release him back to

18

the general population without any additional treatment and little, if

19

any, follow-up.

20

c. Defendants failed to have proper protocols, policies, and procedures in

21

place to minimize and mitigate Mr. Mayfield ’s ability to inflict self-

22

harm.

23

d. Defendants’ procedures, practices, policies, and processes for

24

assessing and treating inmates with serious mental illness, including

25

Mr. Mayfield, focused on acute symptoms of a very limited number of

26

inmates and did not adequately identify or treat inmates with serious

27

mental health needs. Inmates with serious mental health conditions,

28

such as Mr. Mayfield, were unable to obtain timely and appropriate

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-24-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 26 of 40

1

care, particularly if they were not showing acute symptoms.

2

e. On information and belief, Defendants have a policy and practice of

3

providing mental health treatment—primarily consisting of isolation

4

and restraint—only to patients who would meet the requirements for

5

involuntary detention under California Welfare and Institutions code

6

section 5150. This does not meet the Constitutional standard for the

7

provision of minimally adequate mental health treatment in Jail.

8

f. Following Mr. Mayfield’s return to the Jail after treatment for

9

restoration of competency at Napa State Hospital, Defendants failed to

10

provide Mr. Mayfield with necessary mental health treatment, causing

11

him to once again decompensate to the point where he was gravely

12

disabled and posed serious risk of harm to himself.

13

g. Defendants failed to appropriately assess Mr. Mayfield’s suicidality,

14

risk of harm to himself, and mental illness, and, instead, chose to

15

ignore his symptoms and refuse to provide him treatment.

16

h. Despite Defendants’ knowledge that Mr. Mayfield needed care, Mr.

17

Mayfield routinely experienced significant delays in receiving even the

18

minimal health treatment provided by Defendants. These delays

19

caused him further harm.

20

i. Despite Defendants’ knowledge that Mr. Mayfield had been subjected

21

to physical abuse including sexual assault by other inmates,

22

Defendants failed to assess the effects of that abuse on Mr. Mayfield’s

23

mental health and risk for self-harm.

24

110. By policy and practice, Defendants fail to provide adequate mental

25 health treatment to inmates with mental illness such as Mr. Mayfield, including but

26 not limited to: failure to provide appropriate medication and ensure timely

27 distribution of medication; failure to appropriately supervise and evaluate the

28 administration of medication; failure to provide a sufficient number of trained

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-25-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 27 of 40

1 mental health professionals; failure to set up an appropriate, systematic program for

2 screening and evaluating inmates to identify those in need of mental health care;

3 failure to institute a treatment program that involves more than the segregation and

4 close supervision of mentally ill inmates; failure to provide appropriate treatment

5 including counseling and therapy, failure to identify and provide appropriate

6 clinical treatment to inmates in acute psychiatric crisis; failure to appropriately

7 screen for suicidality, implement adequate suicide precautions or establish a basic

8 program to identify, treat and supervise inmates at risk for suicide and; failure to

9 provide appropriate follow-up treatment to inmates released from suicide watch .

10

111. Defendants employ inadequate policies, procedures, and practices for

11 identifying inmates in need of medical and mental health treatment and providing

12 appropriate medical and mental health treatment. Defendants also fail to

13 appropriately train and supervise staff regarding the provision of treatment to

14 inmates with medical and mental health issues, especially if the mental illness

15 presents is not presently acute.

16

112. Defendants have consistently failed to meet their constitutional

17 obligation to provide adequate medical and mental health care to prisoners in their

18 jails. The mental health care provided by Defendants to prisoners in their jails is

19 woefully inadequate and falls far short of all of the minimum elements of a

20 constitutional mental health care system. Defendants’ failure to correct their

21 policies, procedures, and practices, despite notice of significant and dangerous

22 problems, evidences deliberate indifference in the provision of mental health

23 treatment.

24

113. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions as alleged herein, including but not

25 limited to their failure to provide Mr. Mayfield with appropriate medical or

26 psychiatric care and to identify suicide risk, along with the acts and/or omissions of

27 the Defendants in failing to train, supervise and/or promulgate appropriate policies

28 and procedures in order to identify suicide risk and provide treatment, constituted

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-26-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 28 of 40

1 deliberate indifference to Mr. Mayfield’s serious medical needs, health and safety.

2

114. All of the acts of the persons involved in Mr. Mayfield’s care were

3 done under color and pretense of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs,

4 official policies, official procedures, and usages of the County of Sacramento.

5

115. On information and belief, Mr. Mayfield alleges that the County of

6 Sacramento has allocated insufficient financial and material resources to the County

7 Sheriff to allow the County Sheriff to properly care for the mental health needs of

8 inmates while complying with other statutory mandates. In addition, Defendants

9 Jones, Lewis and Pattison, who all have budgetary authority in the allocation and

10 spending of money given to the Sheriff for operation of the County Jail, have

11 allocated insufficient funding and material resources to mental health personnel for

12 the care and treatment of persons who have serious mental illness, especially if the

13 mental illness presents itself in a non-acute fashion.

14

116. The net result of this policy of underfunding and insufficient training is

15 that inmates’ mental health conditions worse while under Defendants’ care and, in

16 situations such as Mr. Mayfield’s, inmates injure themselves.

17

117. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Mayfield

18 suffered bodily injury, emotional distress, loss of the enjoyment of life, and

19 numerous other forms of damage.

20

118. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

21 disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiff of

22 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

23 to deter such conduct in the future.

24 / / /

25 / / /

26 / / /

27

28

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-27-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 29 of 40

1

Fourth Cause of Action

2 Failure to Protect from Harm in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the

3

United States Constitution (42 U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. §15601, et al.)

4 (Plaintiff James Joshua Mayfield against Defendants Jones, Lewis, Pattison,

5 County of Sacramento, Dr. Gregory Sokolov, Dr. Charles Scott, Dr. Robert

6

Hales, and Does 1-5)

7

119. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

8 set forth herein.

9

120. Defendants could have taken action to prevent unnecessary harm to

10 Mr. Mayfield, but refused or failed to do so. As a result, Mr. Mayfield was severely

11 and permanently injured in July 2013.

12

121. Defendants failed to have minimally necessary policies and procedures

13 concerning the adequate identification and housing of Mr. Mayfield, whom they

14 knew or should have known to be at risk of self-harm and vulnerable to harm from

15 other inmates.

16

122. Defendants also failed to implement minimally sufficient policies and

17 procedures to protect Mr. Mayfield from harm. Defendants failed to appropriately

18 train and supervise staff regarding identification and handling of detainees at risk of

19 harm.

20

123. Defendants failed to protect Mr. Mayfield from harm on numerous

21 occasions, including but not limited to Defendant Orozco’s November 2012 assault,

22 the sexual assaults on Mr. Mayfield by other inmates and Mr. Mayfield’s July 2013

23 suicide attempt and paralyzing injury. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions as alleged

24 herein, including but not limited to their failure to take appropriate measures to

25 protect Mr. Mayfield from harm, along with the acts and/or omissions of the

26 Defendants in failing to train, supervise and/or promulgate appropriate policies and

27 procedures in order to protect Mr. Mayfield from harm, constituted deliberate

28 indifference to Mr. Mayfield’s health and safety.

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-28-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 30 of 40

1

124. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Mayfield

2 experienced physical pain, severe emotional distress, and mental anguish during his

3 incarceration. Mr. Mayfield continues to suffer physical pain, severe emotional

4 distress, and mental anguish as a result of his life-altering injuries.

5

125. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

6 disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiff of

7 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

8 to deter such conduct in the future.

9

Fifth Cause of Action

10

Deprivation of Substantive Due Process Rights in Violation of First and

11 Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution – Loss of Familial

12

Companionship (42 U.S.C. §1983)

13 (Plaintiffs James Allison Mayfield Jr. and Terri Mayfield against Defendants

14

Jones, Lewis, Pattison, County of Sacramento, Dr. Gregory Sokolov, Dr.

15

Charles Scott, Dr. Robert Hales, and Does 1-5)

16

126. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

17 set forth herein.

18

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

19 deliberatively indifferent to Mr. Mayfield’s serious medical needs, health and

20 safety, violating Mr. Mayfield’s constitutional rights, and their failure to train,

21 supervise, and/or take other appropriate measures to prevent the acts and/or

22 omissions that caused Mr. Mayfield’s serious injuries deprived Plaintiffs James

23 Allison Mayfield, Jr. and Terri Mayfield of their liberty interest in the parent-child

24 relationship in violation of their substantive due process rights as defined by the

25 First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

26

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

27 omissions of Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

28 / / /

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-29-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 31 of 40

1

129. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

2 disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiffs of

3 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

4 to deter such conduct in the future.

5

Sixth Cause of Action

6 Discrimination on the Basis of Disability (Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

7 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §

8

794a)

9 (Plaintiff James Joshua Mayfield against Defendants University of California

10

Davis Health System and County of Sacramento)

11

130. Plaintiffs incorporate allegations all of the above previous paragraphs

12 as if fully set forth herein.

13

131. At all relevant times, Plaintiff James Joshua Mayfield suffered from a

14 “disability” within the meaning and scope of 42 U.S.C. §12102 as a result of his

15 mental impairment. Accordingly, Plaintiff was a member of the class of persons

16 protected by the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which make it

17 unlawful for a public entity and entities receiving federal funds to discriminate

18 against an individual with a disability, or to deny the benefits of the services,

19 programs, or activities of a public entity or entity receiving federal funds to a

20 person with a disability.

21

132. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff because of his disabilities

22 and denied him the benefits of public services, programs and activities as a result of

23 his disabilities by, among other things; failing to provide proper and reasonable

24 training to County correctional officers and Jail Psychiatric Program staff regarding

25 how to respond to persons in custody with physical and mental impairments; failing

26 to respond reasonably in dealing with a person with psychiatric disabilities who

27 experienced episodes of psychiatric distress; by denying Plaintiff access to the

28 inpatient program at the Jail because of his psychiatric disabilities; and by imposing

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-30-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 32 of 40

1 punishments on Plaintiff for actions related to his psychiatric disabilities.

2

133. The acts and omissions of Defendants violated the ADA and Section

3 504, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of physical and mental disability,

4 and protect persons such as Plaintiff from the type of injuries and damages set forth

5 herein.

6

134. Defendants University of California Davis Health System is not

7 entitled to immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment for this cause of

8 action.

9

135. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff

10 suffered damages, including, without limitation, pain and suffering; emotional

11 distress; attorneys’ fees; costs of suit; other pecuniary losses not yet ascertained.

12

Seventh Cause of Action

13

Medical Malpractice (California State Law)

14 (Plaintiff James Joshua Mayfield against Defendants University of California

15 Davis Health System, Dr. Gregory Sokolov, Dr. Charles Scott, Dr. Robert

16

Hales, and Does 1-5)

17

136. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

18 set forth herein.

19

137. Defendants failed to comply with professional standards in the

20 treatment of Mr. Mayfield’s serious mental illness by failing to appropriately assess

21 and evaluate his mental health and suicide risk, failing to take appropriate and

22 timely suicide prevention measures, prematurely removing Mr. Mayfield from

23 suicide watch and returning him to an unsafe cell, failing to provide appropriate

24 mental health treatment, and failing to prescribe or provide appropriate and

25 necessary psychiatric medications and ensure compliance with those medications.

26

138. Defendants also failed to appropriately supervise, review, and ensure

27 the competence of medical staff’s and custody staff’s provision of treatment to Mr.

28 Mayfield, and failed to enact appropriate standards and procedures that would have

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-31-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 33 of 40

1 prevented such harm to him.

2

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

3 their professional standards of care, Mr. Mayfield suffered injuries and damages as

4 alleged herein.

5

140. The negligent conduct of these Defendants was committed within the

6 course and scope of their employment.

7

141. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

8 disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiffs of

9 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

10 to deter such conduct in the future.

11

Eighth Cause of Action

12

Failure to Furnish/Summon Medical Care (California State Law)

13 (Plaintiff James Joshua Mayfield against Defendants Jones, Lewis, Pattison,

14

County of Sacramento, Dr. Gregory Sokolov, Does 1-5, and University of

15

California Davis Health System)

16

142. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

17 set forth herein.

18

143. Defendants owed Mr. Mayfield a duty of care to provide him

19 immediate medical and mental health care.

20

144. The conduct of Defendants alleged herein, including but not limited to

21 the facts that Defendants knew or had reason to know that Mr. Mayfield was in

22 need of immediate medical and mental health care and that Defendants failed to

23 take reasonable action to summon or provide that care, resulting in Mr. Mayfield’s

24 permanent and severe injury as alleged herein, violated California state law,

25 including Cal. Govt. Code §§ 844.6 and 845.6.

26

145. Defendants also failed to timely and appropriately respond to Mr.

27 Mayfield’s repeated expressions of suicidal ideation.

28 / / /

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-32-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 34 of 40

1

146. The alleged conduct of Defendants was committed within the course

2 and scope of their employment.

3

147. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Mr. Mayfield

4 suffered injuries and damages causing great pain, as alleged herein.

5

148. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

6 disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiffs of

7 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

8 to deter such conduct in the future.

9

Ninth Cause of Action

10

Assault (California State Law)

11 (Plaintiff James Joshua Mayfield against Defendants Orozco, Does 1-5, and the

12

County of Sacramento)

13

149. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

14 set forth herein.

15

150. Defendant Orozco’s above-described actions in November 2012

16 constituted intent to place Mr. Mayfield in immediate fear of an offense contact

17 upon his person. Defendant Orozco’s conduct also constituted intent to cause a

18 harmful offensive contact upon Mr. Mayfield’s person. Defendant Orozco did not

19 have consent, authority, or necessity to justify his conduct.

20

151. Mr. Mayfield was placed in fear of an offensive contact upon his

21 person when Defendant Orozco offensively touched him in the manner described

22 above and also when he caused him his injuries in November 2012.

23

152. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

24 disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiff of

25 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

26 to deter such conduct in the future.

27 / / /

28 / / /

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-33-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 35 of 40

1

Tenth Cause of Action

2

Battery (California State Law)

3 (Plaintiff James Joshua Mayfield against Defendants Orozco, Does 1-5, and the

4

County of Sacramento)

5

153. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

6 set forth herein.

7

154. Defendant Orozco, without cause or justification, touched Mr.

8 Mayfield with the intent to harm or offend him in November 2012.

9

155. Mr. Mayfield did not consent to the touching,

10

156. Mr. Mayfield was harmed by the touching.

11

157. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

12 disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiff of

13 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

14 to deter such conduct in the future.

15

Eleventh Cause of Action

16

Violation of the Bane Act, Civil Code §52.1 (California State Law)

17 (Plaintiff James Joshua Mayfield against Defendants Orozco, Does 1-5, and the

18

County of Sacramento)

19

158. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

20 set forth herein.

21

159. Defendants, without cause or justification, acted intimidatingly,

22 coercively, and violently against Mr. Mayfield and interfered with his civil rights in

23 November 2012.

24

160. Mr. Mayfield was harmed by these acts.

25

161. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

26 disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiff of

27 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

28 to deter such conduct in the future.

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-34-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 36 of 40

1

Twelfth Cause of Action

2

Negligence (California State Law)

3

(All Plaintiffs against All Defendants)

4

162. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

5 set forth herein.

6

163. With respect to the November 2012 incident, Defendants County of

7 Sacramento and Orozco owed a duty to Mr. Mayfield to treat him reasonably,

8 humanely, and carefully while he was in their care. Defendants breached that duty,

9 and Mr. Mayfield suffered injuries as a result.

10

164. With respect July 2013 incident, Defendants Jones, Lewis, Pattison,

11 County of Sacramento, Regents of the University of California and Dr. Gregory

12 Sokolov owed a duty to Mr. Mayfield and to all inmates to ensure that sufficient

13 funds were allocated in order to institute appropriate programs designed to care for

14 the mental health needs of inmates and that appropriate programs were instituted.

15 In addition, Defendants had a duty to care for Mr. Mayfield’s mental health needs

16 utilizing the equipment, personnel, and facilities over which they had control.

17 Defendants breached that duty, and Mr. Mayfield suffered injuries as a result.

18

165. These same Defendants failed to comply with professional standards in

19 the treatment of Mr. Mayfield’s serious mental illness by failing to appropriately

20 assess and evaluate his mental health and suicide risk, failing to take appropriate

21 and timely suicide prevention measures, failing to place Mr. Mayfield in suicide

22 watch, placing Mr. Mayfield in an unsafe cell, failing to provide appropriate mental

23 health treatment, and failing to prescribe or provide appropriate and necessary

24 psychiatric medications and ensure compliance with those medications.

25

166. These Defendants also failed to appropriately supervise, review, and

26 ensure the competence of medical staff’s and custody staff’s provision of treatment

27 to Mr. Mayfield, and failed to enact appropriate standards and procedures that

28 would have prevented such harm to him.

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-35-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 37 of 40

1

167. Together, these Defendants acted negligently and improperly,

2 breached their respective duties, and as a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs

3 suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

4

168. The negligent conduct of Defendants was committed within the course

5 and scope of their employment.

6

169. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

7 disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiffs of

8 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

9 to deter such conduct in the future.

10

Thirteenth Cause of Action

11 Negligent Supervision, Training, Hiring, and Retention (California State Law)

12

(All Plaintiffs against All Defendants)

13

170. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

14 set forth herein.

15

171. Defendants had a duty to hire, supervise, train, and retain employees

16 and/or agents so that employees and/or agents refrain from the conduct and/or

17 omissions alleged herein.

18

172. Defendants breached this duty, causing the conduct alleged herein.

19

173. Such breach constituted negligent hiring, supervision, training, and

20 retention under the laws of the State of California.

21

174. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure, Plaintiffs

22 suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

23

175. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

24 disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiff of

25 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

26 to deter such conduct in the future.

27 / / /

28 / / /

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-36-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 38 of 40

1

Fourteenth Cause of Action

2

Dangerous Condition of Public Property

3 (Plaintiff James Joshua Mayfield against Defendants Jones, Lewis, Pattison,

4 County of Sacramento, University of California Davis Health System, Dr.

5

Gregory Sokolov, Dr. Charles Scott, Dr. Robert Hales, and Does 1-5)

6

176. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

7 set forth herein.

8

177. Defendants failed to ensure that Mr. Mayfield’s inmate housing was

9 safe and not dangerous. In spite of having full knowledge of Mr. Mayfield’s

10 suicidal ideation and his threat to jump off his bunk and injure himself, and full

11 control over the placement and housing of Mr. Mayfield, Defendants took no steps

12 to assign or devise alternate sleeping arrangements so as to minimize, let alone

13 eliminate, the danger to Mr. Mayfield of his having a bunk bed in his cell.

14

178. This dangerous condition was created and controlled by said

15 Defendants and was a substantial factor in Mr. Mayfield injuring of himself.

16

179. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

17 disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiff of

18 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

19 to deter such conduct in the future.

20

Fifteenth Cause of Action

21

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (California State Law)

22

(All Plaintiffs against All Defendants)

23

180. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

24 set forth herein.

25

181. Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress on

26

Plaintiffs by engaging in extreme and reckless behavior that intended to

27 cause them emotional distress and/or acting with reckless disregard of the

28 possibility that Plaintiffs would suffer emotional distress. Plaintiffs did in fact

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-37-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 39 of 40

1 suffer emotional distress, and continue to suffer emotional distress, as a result of

2 Defendants’ conduct.

3

182. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned acts of

4

Defendants, Plaintiffs were injured as set forth above.

5

183. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

6 disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiffs of

7 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

8 to deter such conduct in the future.

9

Sixteenth Cause of Action

10

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (California State Law)

11

(All Plaintiffs against all Defendants)

12

184. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

13 set forth herein.

14

185. Defendants’ conduct at issue herein was negligent. Plaintiffs suffered

15 significant emotional distress, and continue to suffer significant emotional distress.

16 Defendants’ negligence was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ serious

17 emotional distress.

18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

19

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

20

1. For compensatory, general and special damages against each

21 Defendant, jointly and severally, in an amount to be proven at trial;

22

2. For damages related to the impact of Defendants’ conduct on the

23 parent-child relationship between Plaintiffs James Allison Mayfield, Jr., Terri

24 Mayfield and Mr. Mayfield;

25

3. General damages, including damages for physical and emotional pain,

26 emotional distress, hardship, suffering, shock, worry, anxiety, sleeplessness, illness

27 and trauma and suffering, the loss of the services, society, care and protection of the

28

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-38-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 05/15/15 Page 40 of 40

1 decedent, as well as the loss of financial support and contributions, loss of the

2 present value of future services and contributions, and loss of economic security;

3

4. Prejudgment interest;

4

5. For punitive and exemplary damages against each individually named

5 Defendant and the Regents of the University of California in an amount appropriate

6 to punish Defendant(s) and deter others from engaging in similar misconduct;

7

6. For costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to

8 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and as otherwise authorized by statute or law;

9

7. For restitution as the court deems just and proper;

10

8. For such other relief as the Court may deem proper.

11

JURY DEMAND

12

Plaintiffs hereby request a jury trial in this matter.

13

14 Dated: May 15, 2015

Respectfully Submitted,

15

RIFKIN LAW OFFICE

16

HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP

17

18

By: /s/ Joshua Piovia-Scott

19

Barbara Enloe Hadsell

Dan Stormer

20

Joshua Piovia-Scott

21

Mohammad Tajsar

Lori Rifkin

22

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

23

24

25

26

27

28

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-39-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

 
 Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 46

1

Barbara Enloe Hadsell, Esq. [S.B. #086021] Dan Stormer, Esq. [S.B. #101967]

2

Joshua Piovia-Scott, Esq. [S.B. #222364] Acrivi Coromelas, Esq. [S.B. #298305]

3

Caitlan McLoon, Esq. [S.B. #302798] HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP

4

128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, California 91103

5

Tel: (626) 585-9600/Fax: (626) 577-7079 Emails: bhadsell@hadsellstormer.com

6

dstormer@hadsellstormer.com jps@hadsellstormer.com

7

acoromelas@hadsellstormer.com cmcloon@hadsellstormer.com

8 Lori Rifkin, Esq. [S.B. # 244081]

9

RIFKIN LAW OFFICE P.O. Box 19169

10

Oakland, California 94619 Telephone: (415) 685-3591

11 Email: lrifkin@rifkinlawoffice.com

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

Estate of JAMES JOSHUA MAYFIELD, by and through LISA

15

BERG, as Conservator; JAMES ALLISON MAYFIELD, JR.; and

16 TERRI MAYFIELD,

Case No.: CV-02499-JAM-AC [Assigned to the Honorable John A. Mendez – Courtroom 6] [PROPOSED] FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES;

17

Plaintiffs,

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1. Excessive Force (Fourth Amendment)

18 vs.

2. Unreasonable Search and Seizure (Fourth Amendment)

19

IVAN OROZCO, in his individual capacity; SHERIFF SCOTT JONES, in

3. Failure to Provide Medical Care (Fourteenth Amendment)
4. Failure to Protect from Harm

20

his individual and official capacity; JAMES LEWIS, in his individual and

(Fourteenth Amendment) 5. Deprivation of Substantive Due

21 22 23 24

official capacity; RICK PATTISON, in his individual and official capacity; COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM; DR. GREGORY SOKOLOV, in his individual capacity; DR. ROBERT HALES, in his individual capacity; and

Process (First and Fourteenth Amendments) 6. Disability Discrimination (ADA and Rehabilitation Act) 7. Medical Malpractice 8. Failure to Furnish Medical Care 9. Assault 10. Battery 11. Civil Code §52.1

25 Does 1-5,

12. Negligence 13. Negligent Supervision, Training,

26

Defendants.

Hiring, and Retention 14. Dangerous Condition on Public

Property

27

15. Intentional Infliction of Emotional

Distress

28

16. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 46

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. On July 17, 2013, 20-year-old James Mayfield, a pre-trial detainee at

3 the Sacramento County Jail, attempted to commit suicide by diving head first from

4 his bunk bed to the floor of his cell. Although he did not die, he suffered a

5 significant spinal injury that left him paralyzed and cognitively impaired for the rest

6 of his life. Defendants were aware that Mr. Mayfield had been diagnosed with

7 serious mental illness. Defendants had also identified Mr. Mayfield as a suicide

8 risk, knew that he had repeatedly attempted to commit suicide while in Jail, and

9 were aware that he had specifically threatened to jump off his bunk to do so.

10 Defendants also knew that Mr. Mayfield had repeatedly been subjected to physical

11 attacks at the Jail, including an assault by Jail correctional officers and sexual

12 assaults by other inmates. Despite this knowledge, Defendants failed to provide Mr.

13 Mayfield with appropriate mental health care, failed to take adequate steps to

14 protect him from harm, including self-harm, and, in fact, affirmatively placed Mr.

15 Mayfield in danger by placing him in a cell with known suicide hazards.

16

2. Defendant Ivan Orozco, one of the Jail’s correctional officers, brutally

17 assaulted Mr. Mayfield on November 22, 2012, repeatedly kicking and kneeing him

18 in the head while he lay on the ground. After the assault, Mr. Mayfield’s already

19 tenuous mental health deteriorated even faster. He smeared his own feces all over

20 his face and body and was found with a plastic deodorant container lodged in his

21 rectum. He reported that he had been repeatedly raped by other inmates. Defendants

22 remained deliberately indifferent to Mr. Mayfield’s mental health needs and

23 potential for suicide despite his worsening condition, including affirmatively

24 preventing his admission to the Jail’s psychiatric unit, and their conduct culminated

25 in his suicide attempt and subsequent paralysis.

26

3. Mr. Mayfield was released from Jail soon after his suicide attempt and

27 injury. He now lives with his parents, whose relationship with their son has not only

28 been significantly impacted by his permanent psychological and physical

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-1-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 46

1 impairments, but who are required by California law to provide him with the 24

2 hour-a-day care that he will need for the rest of his life.

3

JURISDICTION

4

4. This Complaint seeks damages for violations of the civil rights,

5 privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth and Fourteenth

6 Amendments of the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and

7 1988, and for violations of California state law.

8

5. This Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

9 §§ 1331 and 1343.

10

6. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims

11 asserted herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because the claims form part of the

12 same case or controversy arising under the United States Constitution and federal

13 law.

14

VENUE

15

7. Plaintiffs’ claims arose in the County of Sacramento, California.

16 Venue therefore lies in the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

17 § 1391(b)(2).

18

PARTIES

19

8. James Joshua Mayfield is a 22-year-old citizen of the United States

20 who was incarcerated at the Sacramento County Jail in Sacramento, California, at

21 the time of the incidents described herein. Mr. Mayfield currently resides in San

22 Joaquin County, California with his parents. Plaintiff Lisa Berg, as Conservator of

23 the Estate of James Joshua Mayfield, brings this action pursuant to California Code

24 of Civil Procedure section 372(a)(1). The Superior Court of California, County of

25 San Joaquin, appointed Ms. Berg as the Conservator of Mr. Mayfield’s Estate on

26 May 9, 2016. A true and correct copy of the executed Letters of Conservatorship as

27 to Ms. Berg is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

28

9. Plaintiff James Allison Mayfield, Jr. is the father of James Joshua

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-2-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 46

1 Mayfield. He is suing individually for violations of civil rights under the First and

2 Fourteenth Amendments. Additionally, the Superior Court of California, County of

3 San Joaquin, appointed James Allison Mayfield as the Conservator of Mr.

4 Mayfield’s Person on May 23, 2016. A true and correct copy of the executed

5 Letters of Conservatorship as to James Allison Mayfield is attached hereto as

6 Exhibit 2. Despite this designation, James Allison Mayfield participates in this

7 action only in his individual capacity.

8

10. Plaintiff Terri Lynn Mayfield is the stepmother of James Joshua

9 Mayfield. She is suing individually for violations of civil rights under the First and

10 Fourteenth Amendment.

11

11. Defendant County of Sacramento is a public entity, duly organized and

12 existing under the laws of the State of California. Under its authority, Defendant

13 County of Sacramento operates and manages the Sacramento County Jail and is and

14 was at all relevant times mentioned herein responsible for the actions and/or

15 inactions and the policies, procedures, and practices/customs of the Sacramento

16 County Sheriff’s Department and the Sacramento County Jail, and each entity’s

17 respective employees and/or agents. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department

18 operates the Sacramento County Jail, and is and was responsible for ensuring the

19 provision of emergency and medical and mental health care services to all

20 Sacramento County Jail inmates.

21

12. Defendant Ivan Orozco is, and was at all relevant times mentioned

22 herein, an officer in the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office. While on shift at the

23 Jail, he was and is responsible for the safety and security of inmates and ensuring

24 that their constitutional rights are protected. On November 22, 2012, Defendant

25 Orozco assaulted Mr. Mayfield and violated his constitutional rights. Defendant

26 Orozco is being sued in his individual capacity.

27

13. Defendant Scott Jones is, and was at all relevant times mentioned

28 herein, the Sheriff of the County of Sacramento, the highest position in the

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-3-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 5 of 46

1 Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department. As Sheriff, Defendant Jones is and was

2 responsible for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline,

3 counseling, and control of all Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department custodial

4 employees and/or agents. Defendant Jones is and was charged by law with the

5 administration of the Sacramento County Jail, and is responsible for safety and

6 security of inmates housed at the Jail. Defendant Jones also is and was responsible

7 for the promulgation of the policies and procedures and allowance of the

8 practices/customs pursuant to which the acts of the Sacramento County Sheriff’s

9 Department alleged herein were committed. Defendant Jones is being sued in his

10 individual and official capacities.

11

14. Defendant James Lewis is, and was at all times relevant herein, the

12 Sacramento County Chief of Corrections. Defendant Lewis is being sued in his

13 individual and official capacities.

14

15. Defendant Rick Pattison is, and was at all times relevant herein, the

15 Sacramento County Commander of the Main Jail Division. Defendant Pattison is

16 being sued in his individual and official capacities.

17

16. Defendant University of California Davis Health System runs the Jail

18 Psychiatric Service, which contracts with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s

19 Department to provide inpatient and outpatient mental health services to inmates

20 incarcerated in the Sacramento County Jail.

21

17. Defendant Dr. Gregory Sokolov, M.D. is a Health Sciences Clinical

22 Professor at the University of California at Davis Department of Psychiatry and

23 Behavioral Sciences and is the Medical Director of the Sacramento County’s Jail

24 Psychiatric Service. Dr. Sokolov is responsible for provision of mental health

25 services at the Jail, the policies, procedures, and practices of the Jail Psychiatric

26 Service, and the supervision, discipline, and training of Jail Psychiatric Services

27 staff. Defendant Sokolov is being sued in his individual capacity.

28

18. Defendant Dr. Robert E. Hales, M.D. is the Chair of the Department of

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-4-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 6 of 46

1 Psychiatry and Behavioral Services for the University of California Davis. In this

2 position, Dr. Hales oversees and is responsible for the administration, policies,

3 procedures, and practices of the Jail Psychiatric Service, which contracts with the

4 Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department to provide inpatient and outpatient mental

5 health services to inmates incarcerated in the Sacramento County Jail. Dr. Hales is

6 also responsible for the supervision and discipline of University of California Davis

7 staff and employees who work therein. Defendant Hales is being sued in his

8 individual capacity.

9

19. Defendants Does 1-5 are custody and/or medical staff at Sacramento

10 County Jail who were responsible for the safety and security of Mr. Mayfield

11 and/or providing him with adequate health treatment. Defendants Does 1-5

12 supervised and/or participated in the events complained of herein. At the present

13 time, the identities of Does 1-5 are unknown and not discoverable to Plaintiffs.

14 Plaintiffs will substitute the true names of Does 1-5 when Plaintiffs are able to

15 ascertain their identities through discovery. Does 1-5 are sued in their individual

16 capacities.

17

20. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times

18 mentioned in this Complaint, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents,

19 employees, servants, joint venturers, partners and/or co-conspirators of the other

20 Defendants named in this Complaint and that at all times, each of the Defendants

21 was acting within the course and scope of said relationship with Defendants.

22

FACUAL ALLEGATIONS

23

21. James Allison Mayfield, Jr. is the father of James Joshua Mayfield. He

24 has held a California State license as painter for 32 years, ran a successful painting

25 contracting business, and held a leadership position in his church for 15 years

26 before being forced to abandon his business and church activities to care for his

27 son. Terri Lynn Mayfield is James Joshua Mayfield’s step-mother. She has served

28 as the Choir Director in the family’s church since 2007 and previously assisted

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-5-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 7 of 46

1 James Allison Mayfield, Jr. with his painting business before the family was forced

2 to close it down. James Joshua Mayfield lived with his father, step-mother and

3 siblings in the suburbs of San Jose and was a diligent and successful student and

4 athlete before being tragically injured in a high school football game.

5 I. Mayfield Suffers a Significant Head Injury During a High School

6

Football Game and Begins to Have Mental Health Issues

7

22. On November 3, 2007, the month before he turned 15 years old, Mr.

8 Mayfield suffered a significant head injury during a high school football game. He

9 initially experienced a cerebral concussion and then minutes later suffered a series

10 of at least five grand mal seizures. He was taken to the emergency room, where

11 medical staff was unable to stabilize him and was forced to induce a coma. He was

12 eventually brought out of the coma but was never the same again.

13

23. Mr. Mayfield’s injury occurred during the last game of his freshman

14 year at Mount Pleasant High School in San Jose, California. Mr. Mayfield was

15 named the freshman player of the year and chosen for the all-league team. The year

16 before, he had been selected as the MVP of his school’s basketball team and the

17 player of the year in the basketball league. In addition to his athletic success, Mr.

18 Mayfield had been a diligent student and was carrying a 3.4 grade point average at

19 the time of the head injury.

20

24. Not only was Mr. Mayfield unable to participate in organized sports

21 after his head injury, but his grades started to go down and he began having

22 behavioral issues that he had never had before. By the end of his freshman year, his

23 grade point average had plummeted to 2.3. He was depressed, angry and aggressive

24 in ways he had never been before. His attention, concentration and memory were

25 significantly impaired, and he expressed suicidal thoughts for the first time.

26 Although he had never previously had issues with the law or his school, he was

27 suspended from school and arrested for the first time in the Spring of 2008.

28

25. A psychologist who examined Mr. Mayfield in April 2008 after his

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-6-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 8 of 46

1 first arrest concluded that Mr. Mayfield had “severe” cognitive difficulties that

2 were caused by the head injury he suffered in November 2007. At the urging of the

3 psychologist, Mr. Mayfield’s parents removed him from school and hired a private

4 teacher to home school him. They also enrolled Mr. Mayfield in anger management

5 therapy, participated in weekly family therapy sessions and worked closely with

6 Mr. Mayfield’s educators to ensure he was receiving the appropriate instruction.

7

26. Mr. Mayfield’s condition continued to worsen despite his family’s

8 efforts and support. Mr. Mayfield was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic and

9 began taking low doses of psychotropic medication.

10

27. Medical records for Mr. Mayfield indicate that he attempted to

11 commit suicide on at least four separate occasions and was placed on an involuntary

12 psychiatric hold pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150

13 just prior to his incarceration in the Sacramento County Jail. Mr. Mayfield’s parents

14 provided Defendants with these medical records before the November 2012 assault

15 and the July 2013 suicide attempt.

16 II. Defendants Are Repeatedly Put on Notice that Mr. Mayfield is Suicidal

17

but Fail to Adequately Address This and His Other Mental Health Needs

18

28. Mr. Mayfield was arrested and incarcerated in the Sacramento County

19 Jail on or about June 5, 2011. Mr. Mayfield’s parents, particularly his father, visited

20 him almost every week, provided Defendants with information and records

21 regarding Mr. Mayfield’s psychiatric history and condition and worked closely with

22 his criminal defense attorneys in an attempt to make sure that Mr. Mayfield was

23 receiving appropriate treatment while in the Jail.

24

29. Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Mayfield’s serious

25 mental health needs despite repeated notice that he was suicidal and had significant

26 mental health issues, as detailed in the following paragraphs.

27

30. A July 7, 2011 psychiatric evaluation conducted at the request of the

28 Sacramento Superior Court summarized Mr. Mayfield’s psychiatric history,

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-7-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 9 of 46

1 including his diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and history of at least four

2 suicide attempts, and concluded that he had a “moderate to high risk of violence

3 toward himself and others in both the short and long term.” The evaluating doctor

4 further concluded that Mr. Mayfield was not competent to stand trial on the

5 criminal charges that had been brought against him, that he had no capacity to make

6 decisions about his medications or treatment, and confirmed the previous diagnoses

7 of paranoid schizophrenia.

8

31. In an August 6, 2011 report for the Superior Court, another mental

9 health professional who examined Mr. Mayfield recounted his history of self-harm

10 and documented that he “was responding to internal stimuli” and appeared to be

11 hallucinating during their interview. The psychologist confirmed that Mr. Mayfield

12 was schizophrenic and concluded that his psychiatric condition was worsening.

13

32. On or about August 13, 2011, Mr. Mayfield attempted to run away

14 from one of the deputies when the deputy was escorting him back to his cell.

15 Defendants claimed that they needed to use pepper spray in order to control Mr.

16 Mayfield and that he told them that “I am hearing voices and the voices told me to

17 take your keys and run so that I could escape.” Defendants’ records also indicate

18 that Mr. Mayfield informed them that he felt suicidal.

19

33. On August 15, 2011, Defendants identified Mr. Mayfield as a danger

20 to himself and “gravely disabled.” He was sent to the Jail’s inpatient psychiatric

21 unit and then discharged back to the general population on August 18. Defendants’

22 records indicate that Mr. Mayfield did not receive any mental health treatment

23 between August 18 and September 3, 2011.

24

34. On September 3, 2011, Mr. Mayfield again informed Defendants that

25 he was “having suicidal thoughts” and “wanted to hurt himself.” Defendants

26 responded by handcuffing him and placing him in a classroom.

27

35. On information and belief, Defendants’ primary practice for

28 addressing potentially suicidal inmates is to handcuff them in a classroom until they

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-8-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 10 of 46

1 can be assessed by qualified psychiatric staff. This classroom is inadequately

2 equipped to house suicidal inmates and, among other things, does not contain

3 running water, a bed or a toilet. Due to understaffing, mentally ill inmates,

4 including Mr. Mayfield, are repeatedly subjected to this process and regularly spend

5 long periods of time restrained in the classroom waiting for psychiatric treatment

6 after expressing suicidal ideations. On information and belief, suicidal inmates are

7 regularly restrained in the classroom for as long as two days, a strategy Defendants

8 refer to as “classroom therapy,” whereby Defendants seek to pressure the inmates to

9 deny they are suicidal so that they can be denied admission to the psychiatric unit

10 and returned to the general population without treatment.

11

36. Although Sacramento County’s correctional facilities had an average

12 daily population of 4,046 inmates in 2012, there are only 18 beds in the system’s

13 one inpatient Psychiatric Services Unit. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s

14 Department’s 2013 report titled “A Proactive Response to Public Safety

15 Realignment” confirms these numbers and adds that “Due to the limited capacity

16 [of the Inpatient Psychiatric Services Unit], there is often a waiting list for

17 admission to this Unit.”

18

37. Despite the fact that he continued to inform Defendants that he was

19 suicidal, Mr. Mayfield was denied psychiatric care on September 3, 2011 and

20 returned to the general population. There is no indication in Defendants’ records

21 that Mr. Mayfield received any additional treatment or was evaluated by a doctor in

22 connection with his September 3, 2011 report that he was suicidal.

23

38. On or about September 29, 2011, Mr. Mayfield was admitted to the

24 California Department of Mental Health Hospital in Napa in order to restore his

25 competency to stand trial. After receiving treatment and medication at the hospital

26 for approximately two months, Mr. Mayfield was found to be competent to stand

27 trial on November 22, 2011 and returned to the Sacramento County Jail soon

28 thereafter. The doctors in Napa diagnosed Mr. Mayfield as paranoid schizophrenic

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-9-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 11 of 46

1 and documented his hallucinations and paranoid delusions. Other than the therapy

2 and other non-medication treatment he received during the two months he spent at

3 the Napa Hospital, Defendants’ treatment of Mr. Mayfield was almost exclusively

4 limited to administering medications.

5

39. Defendants’ records indicate that Mr. Mayfield did not receive any

6 additional mental health treatment when he was returned to Sacramento County Jail

7 at the end of 2011. Without treatment, his mental health once again decompensated,

8 and on March 22, 2012, Mr. Mayfield again informed Defendants that he was

9 suicidal and then urinated on an electrical outlet and started a fire.

10

40. On March 23, 2012, Mr. Mayfield was admitted to the Jail’s inpatient

11 psychiatric facility on the basis that he was a danger to himself. Mr. Mayfield was

12 housed in the psychiatric unit from March 23, 2012 to April 24, 2012. Jail deputies

13 admit to striking Mr. Mayfield 3-4 times in the head and face on March 25, while

14 he was housed in the psychiatric unit, claiming that Mr. Mayfield lunged at them.

15 There is no record indicating that he was examined for injury as a result of this

16 attack or that he received any additional treatment.

17

41. On May 9, 2012, approximately two weeks after Mr. Mayfield had

18 been released from the psychiatric unit, Jail staff reported that Mr. Mayfield

19 informed them that he was “hearing voices telling him to jump/bang his head/kill

20 himself.” He told psychiatric unit personnel that voices were “telling him to jump

21 off the upper tier . . . [and that] he cannot resist these voices.” Mr. Mayfield was

22 again identified as a danger to himself and “gravely disabled” and was placed in a

23 safety suit and handcuffed in a Jail classroom. He informed Jail personnel that he

24 had attempted suicide on 27 previous occasions.

25

42. Mr. Mayfield was admitted to the psychiatric unit on May 10, 2012.

26 On May 11, 2012, a psychiatrist from the UC Davis Department of Psychiatry

27 submitted a psychiatric evaluation of Mr. Mayfield at the request of the Superior

28 Court. This evaluation states that Mr. Mayfield reported that he had suicidal

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-10-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 12 of 46

1 ideations and concluded that he had a history of suicidal ideation and was a

2 “moderate suicide risk.” The psychiatrist diagnosed Mr. Mayfield as schizophrenic

3 with hallucinations and paranoid delusions.

4

43. On May 14, 2012, Defendants observed Mr. Mayfield repeatedly

5 tearing his own foreskin and pounding the door in his cell. On May 15, Mr.

6 Mayfield again informed Jail personnel that voices had been telling him to jump off

7 the tier and kill himself. In a psychiatric progress note on the same date, the

8 evaluating doctor noted that Mr. Mayfield had engaged in self-injurious behavior

9 the day before, that his “acute suicide risk is high” and that his actions “suggest a

10 need for further observation.”

11

44. Despite the psychiatrist’s May 15, 2012 assessment that Mr. Mayfield

12 was at acute risk for harm and required further observation, Defendants discharged

13 Mr. Mayfield from the inpatient unit the very next day. On the May 16, 2012 form

14 authorizing Mr. Mayfield’s discharge from the psychiatric unit, Defendants further

15 noted that Mr. Mayfield reported that he had a “plan to jump off top tier or bang his

16 head” and that he had been hearing voices for the last three weeks telling him to kill

17 himself by jumping off the top tier. Despite this, Mr. Mayfield did not receive any

18 additional treatment and was returned to general population.

19

45. Defendants’ records indicate that on October 12, 2012, Mr. Mayfield

20 pressed his emergency cell button and informed Defendants that he was suicidal,

21 hearing voices and that he planned on choking himself to death. However,

22 Defendants did not transfer him to the psychiatric unit or place him on the waiting

23 list for the unit.

24

46. On October 13, 2012, Mr. Mayfield informed Jail personnel that he

25 had attempted suicide while housed in the psychiatric unit in May 2012 and stated

26 that he “had plans to jump off his bunk or another high place [to commit suicide] if

27 given the chance.” Defendants placed Mr. Mayfield on the waiting list for the

28 psychiatric unit.

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-11-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 13 of 46

1

47. On October 14, Mr. Mayfield continued to report that he was hearing

2 voices and had suicidal urges and Defendants concluded that he remained a danger

3 to himself.

4

48. On October 15, 2012, Jail Psychiatric Services noted that Mr. Mayfield

5 had attempted suicide at least three times previously and that the last attempt had

6 been made within the last year. Despite this knowledge, Defendants discharged Mr.

7 Mayfield from the psychiatric unit and returned him to general population that day.

8 III. Defendants Assault Mayfield

9

49. Defendant Ivan Orozco, a deputy in the Sacramento County Jail,

10 assaulted Mr. Mayfield on or about November 22, 2012.

11

50. According to Defendants’ records of the incident, Mr. Mayfield went

12 to retrieve the snack he was assigned as treatment for his diabetes at around 9:45

13 p.m. However, Mr. Mayfield was unable to open the door to enter the area where he

14 was to receive the snack and he threw his hands up and began mumbling to himself

15 in frustration. After Defendant Orozco opened the door for Mr. Mayfield,

16 Defendant Orozco pushed him to the ground. When Mr. Mayfield got up,

17 Defendant Orozco threw him back to the ground. Defendant Orozco admits that he

18 then kicked Mr. Mayfield in the face “several times” while Mr. Mayfield was on

19 the ground. Defendant Orozco further admits that after repeatedly kicking Mr.

20 Mayfield in the face, he then “kneed [Mr. Mayfield] in the head and shoulder area

21 approximately four times.” Defendants’ records indicate that the assault was

22 captured on at least two of the video cameras located in the Jail.

23

51. As a result of this incident Mayfield suffered physical injuries

24 including, but not limited to, numerous scrapes, severe bruising, and a laceration on

25 his lip which required seven stitches to close. Despite these injuries, Mr. Mayfield

26 was not hospitalized and was merely given Tylenol for the pain.

27

52. Defendants failed to assess the impact of this incident on Mr.

28 Mayfield’s mental health or provide him with any additional evaluation or

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-12-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 14 of 46

1 treatment. Defendants failed to take any additional actions even though this incident

2 included repeated strikes to Mr. Mayfield’s head and Defendants were aware that

3 his mental illness had been originally caused by a traumatic head injury.

4

53. None of the deputies involved in the assault, including Defendant

5 Orozco, required medical attention for the alleged injuries they suffered during this

6 incident.

7

54. Mr. Mayfield was charged with battery against a police officer in

8 violation of Penal Code 243(C)(2) in connection with this incident. On information

9 and belief, these charges were later dropped at the preliminary hearing after the

10 prosecutor reviewed the videos of the incident and made statements to the effect

11 that, based on the conduct of the deputies who assaulted Mr. Mayfield, she could

12 not move forward with the criminal charges against him.

13

55. On information and belief, Defendants subjected Mr. Mayfield to

14 additional retaliatory actions after this incident and the district attorney’s refusal to

15 bring criminal charges. Although his family had visited Mr. Mayfield regularly

16 after his incarceration in Sacramento, he was not allowed to have visitors for

17 approximately six weeks after the assault.

18

56. The November 2012 assault and subsequent retaliation was a breaking

19 point for Mr. Mayfield. He lost all trust in Defendants and any hope that his mental

20 health would improve while in custody.

21 IV. Mayfield’s Mental Health Continues to Deteriorate and Defendants Fail

22

to Take Appropriate Suicide Precautions

23

57. On January 22, 2013, two months after Defendants’ brutal assault on

24 Mr. Mayfield, Jail personnel reported finding Mr. Mayfield “completely covered in

25 feces from head to toe. Mayfield had feces smeared around his face, including his

26 mouth and there were small chunks of feces in his hair. . . I asked him what was

27 wrong and he told me he was suicidal.” When he was taken to wash the feces off

28 his body, Jail staff found a plastic deodorant stick lodged in his rectum.

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-13-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 15 of 46

1

58. Defendants’ records reflect that when Mr. Mayfield was asked why he

2 had covered himself in his own feces, he stated that he was trying to make himself

3 sick and that he had been “beat up bad.” Mr. Mayfield further informed Jail

4 personnel that he was “sick of living” and reported that other inmates were stealing

5 his thoughts when he slept.

6

59. After Mr. Mayfield was admitted to the psychiatric unit on or about

7 January 22, 2013, he was found sobbing in his cell and informed Jail personnel that

8 he had been “raped daily” by two other inmates. Defendants noted that Mr.

9 Mayfield was “very distraught.”

10

60. Defendants failed to provide Mr. Mayfield with any therapeutic

11 treatment or counseling to address the sexual assaults he reported and the obvious

12 effects of these assaults on Mr. Mayfield’s mental state. There is no indication in

13 the records provided by the Jail that Mr. Mayfield ever received any treatment in

14 connection with these issues, nor that Defendants investigated Mr. Mayfield’s

15 complaints of sexual assault.

16

61. Although Defendants’ records reflect that Mr. Mayfield continued to

17 express suicidal thoughts, Defendants removed him from suicide precautions on

18 January 29, 2013.

19

62. Defendants then discharged him from the psychiatric unit and returned

20 him to the general population on February 2, 2013. On information and belief, Mr.

21 Mayfield did not receive any additional treatment as a result of this disturbing

22 incident.

23

63. Less than one month after being returned to the general population,

24 Jail personnel again reported that Mr. Mayfield was expressing suicidal ideation.

25 On February 24, 2013, Mr. Mayfield informed Jail personnel that “he was suicidal .

26 . . [and that] he tried to kill himself by sticking his head inside the toilet.” During a

27 psychiatric assessment later that day, Mr. Mayfield informed a nurse that “I was

28 contemplating putting my face in the toilet” in an attempt to take his own life. Mr.

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-14-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 16 of 46

1 Mayfield also informed staff that “I put my face in a plastic bag 6 days ago” in

2 another attempt to commit suicide. Despite these statements and Mr. Mayfield’s

3 recent history of suicide attempts at the Jail, including within the past week, the

4 evaluating nurse indicated that Mr. Mayfield did not express suicidal ideation.

5

64. In an April 24, 2013 psychiatric evaluation for Mr. Mayfield’s

6 criminal case, a forensic psychiatrist again concluded that Mr. Mayfield was not

7 competent to stand trial on the criminal charges that had been brought against him.

8 The evaluation stated that Mr. Mayfield had an “established history of violence

9 including suicidality” and an active, psychotic mental disorder. The examiner

10 further concluded that Mr. Mayfield was not malingering.

11

65. Defendants’ records indicate that on June 20, 2013, Jail personnel

12 observed him tearing and braiding his blanket. He was admitted to the psychiatric

13 unit based on suicide risk, but once again transferred back to general population on

14 June 25, less than a month before the suicide attempt that would result in his

15 paralysis.

16

66. Defendants failed to take basic precautions with inmates who were

17 suicidal and repeatedly failed to provide mentally ill inmates with adequate health

18 care throughout Mr. Mayfield’s time in the Sacramento County Jail. On

19 information and belief, this included failing to provide any treatment other than

20 medication, allowing individuals who were not licensed or trained to administer

21 medications to administer medications, improperly administering medications,

22 reducing the type of medications that were available, failing to adequately monitor

23 suicidal inmates, failing to use safety suits and other safety precautions, using

24 safety suits and other safety precautions as punishment, providing generic treatment

25 plans that were not tailored to the individual patient’s needs, over diagnosing

26 patients as malingering, and providing insufficient follow-up for patients that had

27 been admitted to the psychiatric unit. Many of these failures involved violations of,

28 or changes to, existing policies that had been put in place to require adequate

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-15-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 17 of 46

1 treatment. This inadequate treatment and insufficient follow-up resulted in repeated

2 cycling of patients, including Mr. Mayfield, into and out of the psychiatric unit.

3 Defendants’ failures also resulted in repeated suicide attempts and/or suicides,

4 including by patients that had been accused of malingering.

5

67. On one occasion, a mentally ill inmate was physically restrained for

6 almost 24 hours without food, water, treatment or medication while staff waited for

7 a response from a doctor who was in Las Vegas and not returning calls.

8

68. On information and belief, there have been at least 14 suicides, and

9 numerous other attempted suicides, in the Sacramento County Jail in the last 12

10 years.

11

69. On information and belief, starting in or about June of 2013

12 Defendants placed a social worker with no medical training in the position of

13 Program Director for the psychiatric unit at the Sacramento County Jail. Although

14 this position had previously been assigned to a registered nurse who had

15 purportedly been trained to care for patients and administer medications, the new

16 Program Director did not have even this level of training or licensure. Despite the

17 fact that she was not licensed to do so, the new Program Director began

18 administering medications to the inmates, resulting in repeated medication errors.

19 Nurses and other Jail personnel complained about this but nothing was done.

20 V. Mayfield is Placed on a “Do Not Admit” to the Psychiatric Unit List,

21

Attempts Suicide and Becomes Paralyzed

22

70. On information and belief, Defendant Gregory Sokolov, the Medical

23 Director for the County’s Jail Psychiatric Services who is responsible for

24 supervising the doctors in the psychiatric unit, placed Mr. Mayfield on a list of

25 inmates who were not to be admitted to the psychiatric unit without Dr. Sokolov’s

26 express approval. While other inmates who were not on this list could be admitted

27 to the psychiatric unit by any number of other staff members, Dr. Sokolov required

28 his personal approval for the evaluation or admission of Mr. Mayfield because he

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-16-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 18 of 46

1 found Mr. Mayfield difficult and characterized him as “malingering.” On

2 information and belief, Dr. Sokolov’s list, which was maintained on a Microsoft

3 Word document that was regularly printed out and taped to the wall in the facility,

4 was not governed by any policy or rule other than Dr. Sokolov’s personal whims.

5

71. As a result of being placed on Dr. Sokolov’s “do not admit” list, Mr.

6 Mayfield was housed in general population rather than the psychiatric unit in July

7 2013.

8

72. Mr. Mayfield was allegedly part of what Defendants call an

9 “outpatient program” in general population. Inmates in the outpatient program in

10 general population are supposed to be checked regularly and send requests for

11 medical attention, known as “kites,” to Jail staff if they are in distress.

12

73. On information and belief, Mr. Mayfield repeatedly sent “kites” to Jail

13 personnel during the weeks and days leading up to his July 17, 2013 suicide attempt

14 in which he stated that he was suicidal and asked for psychological treatment. Jail

15 personnel received these messages from Mr. Mayfield and indicated that they were

16 urgent but Defendants did not respond. Mr. Mayfield’s cries for help were ignored.

17

74. Despite having specific notice that Mr. Mayfield was considering

18 killing himself by jumping head-first onto the floor from a bunk or tier, and despite

19 knowledge of Mr. Mayfield’s extensive history of suicide attempts and subjection

20 to trauma and assault at the Jail, Defendants housed him in a general population cell

21 with a bunk bed and hard floors. Defendants kept Mr. Mayfield in this cell in July

22 2013 in spite of the kites he sent expressing suicidal ideation and requesting mental

23 health care.

24

75. On or about July 17, 2013, Mr. Mayfield apparently dove or otherwise

25 propelled himself from his bunk bed onto the floor and sustained significant

26 damage to his body and nervous system.

27

76. Defendants’ records indicate that at 2:04 a.m. on July 17, a Jail deputy

28 observed that Mr. Mayfield was lying on the ground in his cell. The records do not

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-17-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 19 of 46

1 indicate that the deputy made any attempt to communicate with Mr. Mayfield at

2 that time or investigate the situation further.

3

77. One hour later, at 3:05 a.m., this same deputy was conducting a routine

4 cell check when he noticed that Mr. Mayfield had not moved from the ground. Mr.

5 Mayfield informed the deputy that “I jumped off the top of my bunk head first. I

6 was trying to commit suicide. I was sick of dealing with the courts and being in jail.

7 I can’t move my arms or legs and my neck hurts.”

8

78. Mr. Mayfield was transferred to the hospital at UC Davis, where it was

9 determined that he had sustained a spinal injury, including, but not limited to, a C5

10 burst fracture with retropulsion leading to tetraparesis with paraplegia and sensory

11 deficits.

12

79. Defendants did not inform Mr. Mayfield’s parents of his suicide

13 attempt or injuries. His parents did not learn of this event until approximately one

14 week later when a nurse from the UC Davis hospital informed them that their son

15 had been injured and was being treated there. Mr. Mayfield’s father and step-

16 mother took turns spending time with him in the hospital and made sure that one of

17 them was there with him at all times.

18

80. After Mr. Mayfield’s parents learned of Mr. Mayfield’s injuries and

19 had the opportunity to review the treatment he was receiving, including

20 medications, they raised concerns with the medical staff at UC Davis regarding the

21 high dosages and types of psychotropic medications that he was being given. On or

22 around August 21, 2013, Mr. Mayfield’s parents met with the medical staff at UC

23 Davis, who informed them that UC Davis had continued the same dosages and

24 medications that Mr. Mayfield was prescribed at Sacramento County Jail. The UC

25 Davis medical staff informed Mr. Mayfield’s parents that these medications and/or

26 dosages were, in fact, inappropriate, and that they would be adjusted. On

27 information and belief, this inappropriate administration of psychotropic

28 medications by Defendants to Mr. Mayfield is known to cause serious side effects,

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-18-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 20 of 46

1 including suicidal thoughts and ideation.

2

81. Mr. Mayfield’s injuries mean that he is bed-ridden and unable to feed,

3 clean, care for himself, or perform other activities of daily living. He now requires

4 constant intensive care.

5

82. Following Mr. Mayfield’s injuries, Defendants dropped most of the

6 charges against him, allowed him to plead no contest to one count of felony

7 robbery, gave him credit for the more than two years he had spent at the

8 Sacramento County Jail and released him to the custody of his father and step-

9 mother with the express understanding that they would assume all of the

10 responsibility for his medical care.

11

83. In order to provide the necessary care for Mr. Mayfield, Mr.

12 Mayfield’s father closed his painting business and resigned the leadership position

13 he had held for more than 15 years at his church. James and/or Terri Mayfield now

14 dedicate themselves full-time or nearly full-time to their son’s care. The family had

15 to purchase medical equipment that would allow Mr. Mayfield to live at their home,

16 including a hospital bed, oxygen dispenser and a wheelchair. Before his discharge

17 from the hospital, James and Terri Mayfield trained with nurses there for 2-4 hours

18 a day for 8 weeks, learning, among other things, how to perform Mr. Mayfield’s

19 bowel care, attach and remove his catheter, prevent bed sores and infections, and

20 administer his numerous medication injections. Mr. Mayfield’s father and

21 stepmother are now his full-time caregivers and essentially devote 24 hours a day to

22 their son’s medical needs. After repeatedly checking on Mr. Mayfield and adjusting

23 his medication during the night, the day begins at 7:30 a.m. when James and/or

24 Terri checks and administers Mr. Mayfield’s medication, prepares and feeds him

25 his breakfast, changes his diaper and catheter, dresses him, stretches, massages and

26 exercises Mr. Mayfield, monitors blood sugar and urine level in urine collection

27 bag, and engages in other activities necessary for the day. This regimen takes place

28 every day and lasts from morning until late into the evening, averaging more than

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-19-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 21 of 46

1 fourteen hours of direct care per day. When one parent is outside of the house or

2 otherwise needs to be relieved from performing caregiving duties, the other parent

3 must perform all of these services. James and/or Terri also take care of scheduling

4 all of Mr. Mayfield’s medical, mental health, and rehabilitative appointments,

5 tracking and ordering prescriptions and supplies, and communicating with service

6 providers.

7

84. Mr. Mayfield entered the Sacramento County Jail at 18 years old, fully

8 capable of most physical activities. He could walk, run, jump, skip and dance.

9 When Defendants discharged Mr. Mayfield from their custody two and a half years

10 later, he was paralyzed from his neck down and unable to even feed himself or

11 walk.

12

85. The lack of appropriate mental health treatment provided at the Jail

13 combined with the physical and psychological abuse to which Defendants subjected

14 him severely exacerbated Mr. Mayfield’s mental illness, and led to the repeated

15 decompensation of his mental health, and, ultimately, to the suicide attempt that left

16 him paralyzed and further traumatized.

17

86. As a result of Defendants’ actions and omissions, Mr. Mayfield has

18 experienced and will continue to experience extreme pain and suffering and loss of

19 enjoyment of life. As a further result of Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Mayfield has and

20 will continue to incur millions of dollars in expenses for lost wages, medical care,

21 and assistance with daily living.

22

87. Mr. Mayfield’s injuries and the constant care he now requires have

23 been devastating for his parents and required them to put their lives aside and spend

24 basically all of their time, energy and limited financial resources caring for him. As

25 a result of Defendants’ actions and inactions, Mr. Mayfield’s parents have also

26 experienced and will continue to experience pain, suffering, and financial hardship.

27 / / /

28 / / /

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-20-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 22 of 46

1

EXHUASTION OF PRE-LAWSUIT PROCEDURES

2

FOR STATE LAW CLAIMS

3

88. Plaintiff filed timely governmental tort claims with Defendant County

4 of Sacramento regarding the November 22, 2012 assault on May 22, 2013 and

5 regarding the July 17, 2013 suicide attempt on January 16, 2014. By

6 correspondence dated May 29, 2013 and February 5, 2014, respectively, the County

7 of Sacramento rejected these governmental tort claims.

8

CAUSES OF ACTION

9

First Cause of Action

10

Excessive Force in Violation of the Fourth Amendment of United States

11

Constitution (42 U.S.C. §1983)

12 (The Estate of James Joshua Mayfield, by and through Plaintiff Lisa Berg,

13

against Defendants Orozco, Jones, Does 1-5, and County of Sacramento)

14

89. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

15 set forth herein.

16

90. The acts of Defendants relating to the November 2012 incident

17 deprived Mr. Mayfield of his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United

18 States Constitution by utilizing excessive force upon him.

19

91. The force used by Defendant Orozco against Mr. Mayfield was

20 unjustified and excessive.

21

92. All of the acts of Defendants and the persons involved were done

22 under color and pretense of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, official

23 policies, official procedures, and usages of the County of Sacramento.

24

93. Various deputies, directly or indirectly, participated in the affirmative

25 acts of others, with the result that Mr. Mayfield was injured.

26

94. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the County of

27 Sacramento has an inadequate policy of supervising sheriff’s deputies and has not

28 adequately trained its deputies so as to prevent the use of unlawful force such as

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-21-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 23 of 46

1 that described above.

2

95. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Mayfield

3 suffered humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, mental anguish, fear, anxiety, loss

4 of reputation, emotional distress, and loss of his liberty and freedom.

5

96. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

6 disregard of the Mr. Mayfield’s rights, thereby justifying an award of exemplary or

7 punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and to deter such

8 conduct in the future.

9

Second Cause of Action

10 Unreasonable Search and Seizure in Violation of the Fourth Amendment of

11

United States Constitution (42 U.S.C. §1983)

12 (The Estate of James Joshua Mayfield, by and through Plaintiff Lisa Berg,

13

against Defendants Orozco, Jones, Does 1-5, and County of Sacramento)

14

97. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

15 set forth herein.

16

98. The acts of Defendants relating to the November 2012 incident

17 deprived Mr. Mayfield of his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United

18 States Constitution by effectuating an unreasonable search and/or seizure of him.

19

99. Defendant Orozco’s actions against Mr. Mayfield were unreasonable,

20 and effectuated a search and/or seizure of Mr. Mayfield’s person in violation of the

21 Fourth Amendment.

22

100. All of the acts of Defendants and the persons involved were done

23 under color and pretense of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, official

24 policies, official procedures, and usages of the County of Sacramento.

25

101. Various deputies, directly or indirectly, participated in the affirmative

26 acts of others, with the result that Mr. Mayfield was injured.

27

102. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the County of

28 Sacramento has an inadequate policy of supervising sheriff’s deputies and has not

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-22-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 24 of 46

1 adequately trained its deputies so as to prevent the use of unlawful force such as

2 that described above.

3

103. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Mayfield

4 suffered humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, mental anguish, fear, anxiety, loss

5 of reputation, emotional distress, and loss of his liberty and freedom.

6

104. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

7 disregard of Mr. Mayfield’s rights, thereby justifying an award to his Estate of

8 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

9 to deter such conduct in the future.

10

Third Cause of Action

11

Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical and Mental Health Needs in

12 Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of United States Constitution (42

13

U.S.C. §1983)

14 (The Estate of James Joshua Mayfield, by and through Plaintiff Lisa Berg,

15 against Defendants Jones, Lewis, Pattison, County of Sacramento, Sokolov,

16

Hales, and Does 1-5)

17

105. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

18 set forth herein.

19

106. The County of Sacramento and the University of California at Davis’

20 policies, practices, and procedure deprived Mr. Mayfield of his rights under the

21 Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, including, without limitation, the right

22 to adequate medical and mental health care. This conduct represents a policy and/or

23 practice of deliberate indifference towards the needs of inmates.

24

107. On numerous occasions prior to July 17, 2013, Defendants were

25 informed and knew that Mr. Mayfield routinely held suicidal ideations, was

26 routinely gravely disabled, and was routinely an immediate danger to himself.

27 However, Defendants failed to administer standard and necessary medical and

28 mental health treatment to Mr. Mayfield before, during, and after these episodes.

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-23-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 25 of 46

1 Defendants also failed to properly classify and house Mr. Mayfield based on his

2 serious health needs.

3

108. The policies, procedures, and protocols which Defendants had in place

4 and which were administered by personnel at the Jail related to mental health

5 treatment and suicide prevention were legally and medically insufficient to protect

6 Mr. Mayfield from suicide and harm. For instance,

7

a. After having specifically noted in the chart that Mr. Mayfield was

8

considering killing himself by jumping head-first onto the floor,

9

Defendants forced Mr. Mayfield to live in a room with a bunk bed and

10

hard floors in which he suffered injury. Defendants should have taken

11

steps to mitigate or eliminate these dangers. These and other physical

12

characteristics of the room constituted unreasonably dangerous

13

premises.

14

b. Mr. Mayfield reported his suicidal ideations to Jail personnel on many

15

occasions. However, Defendants’ only response was to isolate Mr.

16

Mayfield in restraints in a classroom or the psychiatric unit, without

17

providing necessary clinical treatment, and then release him back to

18

the general population without any additional treatment and little, if

19

any, follow-up.

20

c. Defendants failed to have proper protocols, policies, and procedures in

21

place to minimize and mitigate Mr. Mayfield’s ability to inflict self-

22

harm.

23

d. Defendants’ procedures, practices, policies, and processes for

24

assessing and treating inmates with serious mental illness, including

25

Mr. Mayfield, focused on acute symptoms of a very limited number of

26

inmates and did not adequately identify or treat inmates with serious

27

mental health needs. Inmates with serious mental health conditions,

28

such as Mr. Mayfield, were unable to obtain timely and appropriate

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-24-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 26 of 46

1

care, particularly if they were not showing acute symptoms.

2

e. On information and belief, Defendants have a policy and practice of

3

providing mental health treatment—primarily consisting of isolation

4

and restraint—only to patients who would meet the requirements for

5

involuntary detention under California Welfare and Institutions code

6

section 5150. This does not meet the Constitutional standard for the

7

provision of minimally adequate mental health treatment in Jail.

8

f. Following Mr. Mayfield’s return to the Jail after treatment for

9

restoration of competency at Napa State Hospital, Defendants failed to

10

provide Mr. Mayfield with necessary mental health treatment, causing

11

him to once again decompensate to the point where he was gravely

12

disabled and posed serious risk of harm to himself.

13

g. Defendants failed to appropriately assess Mr. Mayfield’s suicidality,

14

risk of harm to himself, and mental illness, and, instead, chose to

15

ignore his symptoms and refuse to provide him treatment.

16

h. Despite Defendants’ knowledge that Mr. Mayfield needed care, Mr.

17

Mayfield routinely experienced significant delays in receiving even the

18

minimal health treatment provided by Defendants. These delays

19

caused him further harm.

20

i. Despite Defendants’ knowledge that Mr. Mayfield had been subjected

21

to physical abuse including sexual assault by other inmates,

22

Defendants failed to assess the effects of that abuse on Mr. Mayfield’s

23

mental health and risk for self-harm.

24

109. By policy and practice, Defendants fail to provide adequate mental

25 health treatment to inmates with mental illness such as Mr. Mayfield, including but

26 not limited to: failure to provide appropriate medication and ensure timely

27 distribution of medication; failure to appropriately supervise and evaluate the

28 administration of medication; failure to provide a sufficient number of trained

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-25-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 27 of 46

1 mental health professionals; failure to set up an appropriate, systematic program for

2 screening and evaluating inmates to identify those in need of mental health care;

3 failure to institute a treatment program that involves more than the segregation and

4 close supervision of mentally ill inmates; failure to provide appropriate treatment

5 including counseling and therapy, failure to identify and provide appropriate

6 clinical treatment to inmates in acute psychiatric crisis; failure to appropriately

7 screen for suicidality, implement adequate suicide precautions or establish a basic

8 program to identify, treat and supervise inmates at risk for suicide; and failure to

9 provide appropriate follow-up treatment to inmates released from suicide watch.

10

110. Defendants employ inadequate policies, procedures, and practices for

11 identifying inmates in need of medical and mental health treatment and providing

12 appropriate medical and mental health treatment. Defendants also fail to

13 appropriately train and supervise staff regarding the provision of treatment to

14 inmates with medical and mental health issues, especially if the mental illness

15 presents as not presently acute.

16

111. Defendants have consistently failed to meet their constitutional

17 obligation to provide adequate medical and mental health care to prisoners in their

18 jails. The mental health care provided by Defendants to prisoners in their jails is

19 woefully inadequate and falls far short of all of the minimum elements of a

20 constitutional mental health care system. Defendants’ failure to correct their

21 policies, procedures, and practices, despite notice of significant and dangerous

22 problems, evidences deliberate indifference in the provision of mental health

23 treatment.

24

112. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions as alleged herein, including but not

25 limited to their failure to provide Mr. Mayfield with appropriate medical or

26 psychiatric care and to identify suicide risk, along with the acts and/or omissions of

27 the Defendants in failing to train, supervise and/or promulgate appropriate policies

28 and procedures in order to identify suicide risk and provide treatment, constituted

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-26-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 28 of 46

1 deliberate indifference to Mr. Mayfield’s serious medical needs, health and safety.

2

113. All of the acts of the persons involved in Mr. Mayfield’s care were

3 done under color and pretense of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs,

4 official policies, official procedures, and usages of the County of Sacramento.

5

114. On information and belief, Mr. Mayfield alleges that the County of

6 Sacramento has allocated insufficient financial and material resources to the County

7 Sheriff to allow the County Sheriff to properly care for the mental health needs of

8 inmates while complying with other statutory mandates. In addition, Defendants

9 Jones, Lewis and Pattison, who all have budgetary authority in the allocation and

10 spending of money given to the Sheriff for operation of the County Jail, have

11 allocated insufficient funding and material resources to mental health personnel for

12 the care and treatment of persons who have serious mental illness, especially if the

13 mental illness presents itself in a non-acute fashion.

14

115. The net result of this policy of underfunding and insufficient training is

15 that inmates’ mental health conditions worsen while under Defendants’ care and, in

16 situations such as Mr. Mayfield’s, inmates injure themselves.

17

116. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Mayfield

18 suffered bodily injury, emotional distress, loss of the enjoyment of life, and

19 numerous other forms of damage.

20

117. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

21 disregard of Mr. Mayfield’s rights, thereby justifying an award to his Estate of

22 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

23 to deter such conduct in the future.

24 / / /

25 / / /

26 / / /

27

28

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-27-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 29 of 46

1

Fourth Cause of Action

2 Failure to Protect from Harm in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the

3

United States Constitution (42 U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. §15601, et al.)

4 (The Estate of James Joshua Mayfield, by and through Plaintiff Lisa Berg,

5 against Defendants Jones, Lewis, Pattison, County of Sacramento, Sokolov,

6

Hales, and Does 1-5)

7

118. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

8 set forth herein.

9

119. Defendants could have taken action to prevent unnecessary harm to

10 Mr. Mayfield, but refused or failed to do so. As a result, Mr. Mayfield was severely

11 and permanently injured in July 2013.

12

120. Defendants failed to have minimally necessary policies and procedures

13 concerning the adequate identification and housing of Mr. Mayfield, whom they

14 knew or should have known to be at risk of self-harm and vulnerable to harm from

15 other inmates.

16

121. Defendants also failed to implement minimally sufficient policies and

17 procedures to protect Mr. Mayfield from harm. Defendants failed to appropriately

18 train and supervise staff regarding identification and handling of detainees at risk of

19 harm.

20

122. Defendants failed to protect Mr. Mayfield from harm on numerous

21 occasions, including but not limited to Defendant Orozco’s November 2012 assault,

22 the sexual assaults on Mr. Mayfield by other inmates and Mr. Mayfield’s July 2013

23 suicide attempt and paralyzing injury. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions as alleged

24 herein, including but not limited to their failure to take appropriate measures to

25 protect Mr. Mayfield from harm, along with the acts and/or omissions of the

26 Defendants in failing to train, supervise and/or promulgate appropriate policies and

27 procedures in order to protect Mr. Mayfield from harm, constituted deliberate

28 indifference to Mr. Mayfield’s health and safety.

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-28-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 30 of 46

1

123. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Mayfield

2 experienced physical pain, severe emotional distress, and mental anguish during his

3 incarceration. Mr. Mayfield continues to suffer physical pain, severe emotional

4 distress, and mental anguish as a result of his life-altering injuries.

5

124. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

6 disregard of Mr. Mayfield’s rights, thereby justifying an award to his Estate of

7 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

8 to deter such conduct in the future.

9

Fifth Cause of Action

10

Deprivation of Substantive Due Process Rights in Violation of First and

11 Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution – Loss of Familial

12

Companionship (42 U.S.C. §1983)

13 (Plaintiffs James Allison Mayfield Jr. and Terri Mayfield against Defendants

14 Jones, Lewis, Pattison, County of Sacramento, Sokolov, Hales, and Does 1-5)

15

125. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

16 set forth herein.

17

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

18 deliberatively indifferent to Mr. Mayfield’s serious medical needs, health and

19 safety, violating Mr. Mayfield’s constitutional rights, and their failure to train,

20 supervise, and/or take other appropriate measures to prevent the acts and/or

21 omissions that caused Mr. Mayfield’s serious injuries deprived Plaintiffs James

22 Allison Mayfield, Jr. and Terri Mayfield of their liberty interest in the parent-child

23 relationship in violation of their substantive due process rights as defined by the

24 First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

25

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

26 omissions of Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

27

128. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

28 disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiffs of

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-29-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 31 of 46

1 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

2 to deter such conduct in the future.

3

Sixth Cause of Action

4 Discrimination on the Basis of Disability (Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

5 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §

6

794a)

7 (The Estate of James Joshua Mayfield, by and through Plaintiff Lisa Berg,

8 against Defendants University of California Davis Health System and County

9

of Sacramento)

10

129. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

11 set forth herein.

12

130. At all relevant times, Mr. Mayfield suffered from a “disability” within

13 the meaning and scope of 42 U.S.C. §12102 as a result of his mental impairment.

14 Accordingly, Mr. Mayfield was a member of the class of persons protected by the

15 ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which make it unlawful for a

16 public entity and entities receiving federal funds to discriminate against an

17 individual with a disability, or to deny the benefits of the services, programs, or

18 activities of a public entity or entity receiving federal funds to a person with a

19 disability.

20

131. Defendants discriminated against Mr. Mayfield because of his

21 disabilities and denied him the benefits of public services, programs and activities

22 as a result of his disabilities by, among other things; failing to provide proper and

23 reasonable training to County correctional officers and Jail Psychiatric Program

24 staff regarding how to respond to persons in custody with physical and mental

25 impairments; failing to respond reasonably in dealing with a person with

26 psychiatric disabilities who experienced episodes of psychiatric distress; by

27 denying Mr. Mayfield access to the inpatient program at the Jail because of his

28 psychiatric disabilities; and by imposing punishments on Mr. Mayfield for actions

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-30-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 32 of 46

1 related to his psychiatric disabilities.

2

132. The acts and omissions of Defendants violated the ADA and Section

3 504, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of physical and mental disability,

4 and protect persons such as Mr. Mayfield from the type of injuries and damages set

5 forth herein.

6

133. Defendants University of California Davis Health System is not

7 entitled to immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment for this cause of

8 action.

9

134. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Mr.

10 Mayfield’s Estate suffered damages, including, without limitation, pain and

11 suffering; emotional distress; attorneys’ fees; costs of suit; other pecuniary losses

12 not yet ascertained.

13

Seventh Cause of Action

14

Medical Malpractice (California State Law)

15 (The Estate of James Joshua Mayfield, by and through Plaintiff Lisa Berg,

16

against Defendants Sokolov, Hales, and Does 1-5)

17

135. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

18 set forth herein.

19

136. Defendants failed to comply with professional standards in the

20 treatment of Mr. Mayfield’s serious mental illness by failing to appropriately assess

21 and evaluate his mental health and suicide risk, failing to take appropriate and

22 timely suicide prevention measures, prematurely removing Mr. Mayfield from

23 suicide watch and returning him to an unsafe cell, failing to provide appropriate

24 mental health treatment, and failing to prescribe or provide appropriate and

25 necessary psychiatric medications and ensure compliance with those medications.

26

137. Defendants also failed to appropriately supervise, review, and ensure

27 the competence of medical staff’s and custodial staff’s provision of treatment to Mr.

28 Mayfield, and failed to enact appropriate standards and procedures that would have

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-31-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 33 of 46

1 prevented such harm to him.

2

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

3 their professional standards of care, Mr. Mayfield’s Estate suffered injuries and

4 damages as alleged herein.

5

139. The negligent conduct of these Defendants was committed within the

6 course and scope of their employment.

7

140. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

8 disregard of Mr. Mayfield’s rights, thereby justifying an award to his Estate of

9 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

10 to deter such conduct in the future.

11

Eighth Cause of Action

12

Failure to Furnish/Summon Medical Care (California State Law)

13 (The Estate of James Joshua Mayfield, by and through Plaintiff Lisa Berg,

14 against Defendants Jones, Lewis, Pattison, County of Sacramento, Sokolov,

15

and Does 1-5)

16

141. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

17 set forth herein.

18

142. Defendants owed Mr. Mayfield a duty of care to provide him

19 immediate medical and mental health care.

20

143. The conduct of Defendants alleged herein, including but not limited to

21 the facts that Defendants knew or had reason to know that Mr. Mayfield was in

22 need of immediate medical and mental health care and that Defendants failed to

23 take reasonable action to summon or provide that care, resulting in Mr. Mayfield’s

24 permanent and severe injury as alleged herein, violated California state law,

25 including Cal. Govt. Code §§ 844.6 and 845.6.

26

144. Defendants also failed to timely and appropriately respond to Mr.

27 Mayfield’s repeated expressions of suicidal ideation.

28

145. The alleged conduct of Defendants was committed within the course

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-32-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 34 of 46

1 and scope of their employment.

2

146. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Mr.

3 Mayfield’s Estate suffered injuries and damages causing great pain, as alleged

4 herein.

5

147. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

6 disregard of Mr. Mayfield’s rights, thereby justifying an award to his Estate of

7 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

8 to deter such conduct in the future.

9

Ninth Cause of Action

10

Assault (California State Law)

11 (The Estate of James Joshua Mayfield, by and through Plaintiff Lisa Berg,

12

against Defendants Orozco, the County of Sacramento, and Does 1-5)

13

148. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

14 set forth herein.

15

149. Defendant Orozco’s above-described actions in November 2012

16 constituted intent to place Mr. Mayfield in immediate fear of an offensive contact

17 upon his person. Defendant Orozco’s conduct also constituted intent to cause a

18 harmful offensive contact upon Mr. Mayfield’s person. Defendant Orozco did not

19 have consent, authority, or necessity to justify his conduct.

20

150. Mr. Mayfield was placed in fear of an offensive contact upon his

21 person when Defendant Orozco offensively touched him in the manner described

22 above and also when he caused him his injuries in November 2012.

23

151. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

24 disregard of Mr. Mayfield’s rights, thereby justifying an award to his Estate of

25 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

26 to deter such conduct in the future.

27 / / /

28 / / /

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-33-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 35 of 46

1

Tenth Cause of Action

2

Battery (California State Law)

3 (The Estate of James Joshua Mayfield, by and through Plaintiff Lisa Berg,

4

against Defendants Orozco, the County of Sacramento, and Does 1-5)

5

152. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

6 set forth herein.

7

153. Defendant Orozco, without cause or justification, touched Mr.

8 Mayfield with the intent to harm or offend him in November 2012.

9

154. Mr. Mayfield did not consent to the touching,

10

155. Mr. Mayfield was harmed by the touching.

11

156. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

12 disregard of Mr. Mayfield’s rights, thereby justifying an award to his Estate of

13 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

14 to deter such conduct in the future.

15

Eleventh Cause of Action

16

Violation of the Bane Act, Civil Code §52.1 (California State Law)

17 (The Estate of James Joshua Mayfield, by and through Plaintiff Lisa Berg,

18

against Defendants Orozco, the County of Sacramento, and Does 1-5)

19

157. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

20 set forth herein.

21

158. Defendants, without cause or justification, acted intimidatingly,

22 coercively, and violently against Mr. Mayfield and interfered with his civil rights in

23 November 2012.

24

159. Mr. Mayfield was harmed by these acts.

25

160. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

26 disregard of Mr. Mayfield’s rights, thereby justifying an award to his Estate of

27 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

28 to deter such conduct in the future.

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-34-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 36 of 46

1

Twelfth Cause of Action

2

Negligence (California State Law)

3 (All Plaintiffs against Defendants Orozco, Jones, Lewis, Pattison, County of

4

Sacramento, Sokolov, Hales, and Does 1-5)

5

161. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

6 set forth herein.

7

162. With respect to the November 2012 incident, Defendants County of

8 Sacramento and Orozco owed a duty to Mr. Mayfield to treat him reasonably,

9 humanely, and carefully while he was in their care. Defendants breached that duty,

10 and Mr. Mayfield suffered injuries as a result.

11

163. With respect July 2013 incident, Defendants Jones, Lewis, Pattison,

12 County of Sacramento, and Sokolov owed a duty to Mr. Mayfield and to all inmates

13 to ensure that sufficient funds were allocated in order to institute appropriate

14 programs designed to care for the mental health needs of inmates and that

15 appropriate programs were instituted. In addition, Defendants had a duty to care for

16 Mr. Mayfield’s mental health needs utilizing the equipment, personnel, and

17 facilities over which they had control. Defendants breached that duty, and Mr.

18 Mayfield suffered injuries as a result.

19

164. These same Defendants failed to comply with professional standards in

20 the treatment of Mr. Mayfield’s serious mental illness by failing to appropriately

21 assess and evaluate his mental health and suicide risk, failing to take appropriate

22 and timely suicide prevention measures, failing to place Mr. Mayfield in suicide

23 watch, placing Mr. Mayfield in an unsafe cell, failing to provide appropriate mental

24 health treatment, and failing to prescribe or provide appropriate and necessary

25 psychiatric medications and ensure compliance with those medications.

26

165. These Defendants also failed to appropriately supervise, review, and

27 ensure the competence of medical staff’s and custodial staff’s provision of

28 treatment to Mr. Mayfield, and failed to enact appropriate standards and procedures

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-35-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 37 of 46

1 that would have prevented such harm to him.

2

166. Together, these Defendants acted negligently and improperly,

3 breached their respective duties, and as a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs

4 suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

5

167. The negligent conduct of Defendants was committed within the course

6 and scope of their employment.

7

168. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

8 disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiffs of

9 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

10 to deter such conduct in the future.

11

Thirteenth Cause of Action

12 Negligent Supervision, Training, Hiring, and Retention (California State Law)

13 (All Plaintiffs against Defendants Orozco, Jones, Lewis, Pattison, County of

14

Sacramento, Sokolov, Hales, and Does 1-5)

15

169. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

16 set forth herein.

17

170. Defendants had a duty to hire, supervise, train, and retain employees

18 and/or agents so that employees and/or agents refrain from the conduct and/or

19 omissions alleged herein.

20

171. Defendants breached this duty, causing the conduct alleged herein.

21

172. Such breach constituted negligent hiring, supervision, training, and

22 retention under the laws of the State of California.

23

173. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure, Plaintiffs

24 suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

25

174. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

26 disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiffs of

27 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

28 to deter such conduct in the future.

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-36-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 38 of 46

1

Fourteenth Cause of Action

2

Dangerous Condition of Public Property

3 (The Estate of James Joshua Mayfield, by and through Plaintiff Lisa Berg,

4 against Defendants Jones, Lewis, Pattison, County of Sacramento, Sokolov,

5

Hales, and Does 1-5)

6

175. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

7 set forth herein.

8

176. Defendants failed to ensure that Mr. Mayfield’s inmate housing was

9 safe and not dangerous. In spite of having full knowledge of Mr. Mayfield’s

10 suicidal ideation and his threat to jump off his bunk and injure himself, and full

11 control over the placement and housing of Mr. Mayfield, Defendants took no steps

12 to assign or devise alternate sleeping arrangements so as to minimize, let alone

13 eliminate, the danger to Mr. Mayfield of his having a bunk bed in his cell.

14

177. This dangerous condition was created and controlled by said

15 Defendants and was a substantial factor in Mr. Mayfield injuring himself.

16

178. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

17 disregard of Mr. Mayfield’s rights, thereby justifying an award to his Estate of

18 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

19 to deter such conduct in the future.

20

Fifteenth Cause of Action

21

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (California State Law)

22 (All Plaintiffs against Defendants Orozco, Jones, Lewis, Pattison, County of

23

Sacramento, Sokolov, Hales, and Does 1-5)

24

179. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

25 set forth herein.

26

180. Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Plaintiffs by

27 engaging in extreme and reckless behavior that intended to cause them emotional

28 distress and/or acting with reckless disregard of the possibility that Plaintiffs would

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-37-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 39 of 46

1 suffer emotional distress. Plaintiffs did in fact suffer emotional distress, and

2 continue to suffer emotional distress, as a result of Defendants’ conduct.

3

181. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned acts of

4 Defendants, Plaintiffs were injured as set forth above.

5

182. Defendants’ actions were malicious, oppressive and/or in reckless

6 disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights, thereby justifying an award to Plaintiffs of

7 exemplary or punitive damages to punish the wrongful conduct alleged herein and

8 to deter such conduct in the future.

9

Sixteenth Cause of Action

10

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (California State Law)

11 (The Estate of James Joshua Mayfield, by and through Plaintiff Lisa Berg,

12 against Defendants Orozco, Jones, Lewis, Pattison, County of Sacramento,

13

Sokolov, Hales, and Does 1-5)

14

183. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above previous paragraphs as if fully

15 set forth herein.

16

184. Defendants’ conduct at issue herein was negligent. Mr. Mayfield

17 suffered significant emotional distress, and continues to suffer significant emotional

18 distress. Defendants’ negligence was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Mayfield’s

19 serious emotional distress.

20

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

21

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

22

1. For compensatory, general and special damages against each

23 Defendant, jointly and severally, in an amount to be proven at trial;

24

2. For damages related to the impact of Defendants’ conduct on the

25 parent-child relationship between Plaintiffs James Allison Mayfield, Jr., and Terri

26 Mayfield, and Mr. Mayfield;

27

3. General damages, including damages for physical and emotional pain,

28 emotional distress, hardship, suffering, shock, worry, anxiety, sleeplessness, illness

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-38-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 40 of 46

1 and trauma and suffering, the loss of the services, society, care and protection of the

2 decedent, as well as the loss of financial support and contributions, loss of the

3 present value of future services and contributions, and loss of economic security;

4

4. Prejudgment interest;

5

5. For punitive and exemplary damages against each individually named

6 Defendant in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant(s) and deter others from

7 engaging in similar misconduct;

8

6. For costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to

9 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and as otherwise authorized by statute or law;

10

7. For restitution as the court deems just and proper;

11

8. For such other relief as the Court may deem proper.

12

JURY DEMAND

13

Plaintiffs hereby request a jury trial in this matter.

14

15 Dated: June 17, 2016

Respectfully Submitted,

16

RIFKIN LAW OFFICE

17

HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP

18

19

By: /s/ - Caitlan McLoon

20

Barbara Enloe Hadsell

Dan Stormer

21

Joshua Piovia-Scott

22

Lori Rifkin Acrivi Coromelas

23

Caitlan McLoon

24

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

25

26

27

28

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

-39-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 41 of 46
EXHIBIT 1

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 42 of 46

GC-350 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (name, addreso, and state Bar number):
Aner recorolng return to:
Penelope R. Brown 217861/Stacey K. Brennan 242765 BOUTIN JONES INC. 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500 Sacramento, CA 95814 TELNO.: (916) 321-4444 FAXNO.(op/iomJQ: (916) 441-7597

&MAIL ADDRESS (oplional):

ATTORNEY FOR rnameJ: Lisa J. Berg

SUPERJOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

STREET ADDRESS: 222 E. Weber Avenue

MAILINGADDREss: P.O. Box 201022

c1TY ANoz1Pcooe:Stockton, CA 95202-2709

aRANcH NAME: Probate

CONSERVATORSHIP OF (name):
JAMES JOSHUA MAYFIELD, also known as JOSHUA MAYFIELD

CONSERVATEE

LETTERS OF CONSERVATOR.SHIP

n Person l'X1 Estate

D Limited Conservatorshio

FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY
CASE NUMBER:
STK-PR-CE-2016-0000057

1. (2J (Name): Lisa J. Berg

1Z1 0 conservator

limited conservator

of the

Is the appointed
D person . fgj estate

of (name): James Joshua Mayfield, also known as Joshua Mayfield

D 2.

(For conservatorshfp that was on December 31, 1980, a guardianship of an adutt or of

the person.of a married minor) (Name}:

0 was appointed the guardian of the

person

0 estate by Cider dated

(specify):

0 and Is now the conservator of the

person

0 estate of (name):

3. 0 Other powers have been granted or conditions Imposed as follows:

0 a. Exclusive authority to give consent for and to require the conservatee to receive

.c: ~Tl
'-.4".•:":·.'t..-!•i
-..'-_µ

medical treatment that the conservator In good faith based on medical advice

determines to be necessacy even If the eonservatee objects. subject to the limitations

stated in Probate Code section 2356. ·

0 (1)

This treatment shall be performed by an accredited practitioner of the religion whose tenets and practices call

for reliance on prayer alone for healing of which the conservatee was an adherent prior to the establishment of

the conservatorshlp.

0 (2)

(If court order limits duration) This medical authority terminates on (date):

.

0 b. Authority to place the conservatee in a care or nursing facility described in Probate Code section 2356.5(b).

0 c. Authority to authorize the administration of medications appropriate for the care and treatment of dementia described In

Probate Code section 2356.S(c).
D d. Powers to be exercised Independently under Probate Code section 2590 are specified In Attachment 3d (specify powers,

restrictions, conditions, and limitations).

O e. conditions relating to the care and custody of property under Probate Code section 2402 are specified In Attachment 3e.

0 f.

Conditions 'relating to the care, treatment, education, and welfare of the conservatee under Probate Code section 2358 ·

are specified In Attachment 3f.
0 g. {For flmited conservatorshlp only) Powers of the iimlted conservator of the person under Probate Code section 2351.5 are

specified In Attachment 3g.
D h. (For llmlted conservatorship only) Powers of the limited conservator of the estate under Probate Code section 1830(b) are

i.
(SEAL)

specified In Attachment 3h.
0 Other powers ·Jranted or conditions imposed are specified In Attachment 31.

0 4.

The conservator Is not authorized to take possession of money or any other property without a

specific court order.

5. Number of pages attached: 0

Clerk, by This form mny be recorded as notlce of the establishment of a conservatorshlp of the estate as provided ln Probate Code § 1875.

, Deputy

Page 1 or2

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 43 of 46

CONSERVATORSHIP OF (name): JAMES JOSHUA MAYFIELD, also known as JOSHUA MAYFIELD
CONSERVATEE

CASE NUMBER:
STK-PR-CE-2016-0000057

GC·350

NOTICE TO INSTITUTIONS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (Probate Code sections 2890-2893)

When these Letters of Conservatorship (Letters) are delivered to you as an employee or other representative of an institution or financial institution (described below) in order for the conservator of the estate {1) to take possession or control of an asset ofihe conservatee named above held by your institution (including changing title. withdrawing all or any portion of the asset, or transferring all or any portion of the asset) or (2) to open or change the name of an account or a safe-deposit box In your financial Institution to reflect the conservatorshlp, you must fill out Judicial Council form GC-050 (for an institution) or form GC-051 (for a financial Institution). An officer authorized by your Institution or financial Institution must date and sign the form, and you must file the completed form with the court.

There Is no filing fee for filing the form. You may either arrange for personal delivery of the form or mall It to the court for filing at the address given for the court on page 1 of these Letters.

The conservator should deliver a blank copy of the appropriate form to you with these Letters, but It is your institution's or financial

institution's responsibility to complete the correct form, have an authorized officer sign It, and file the completed form with the court. If

the correct form is not delivered with these Letters or Is unavailable for any other reason, blank copies of the forms may be obtained

from the court. The forms may also be accessed from the judicial branch's public Web site free of charge. The Internet address (URL) is

www.courts.ca.gov/forms/. Select the form group Probate-Guardianships and Conservatorshlps and scroll down to form GC-050 for

an Institution or form GC-051 for a financial Institution. The forms may be printed out as blank forms and filled in by typewriter or may be

filled out onllne and printed out ready for signature and filing.

·

An Institution under California Probate Code section 2890(c) Is an Insurance company, agent, or broker; an Investment company; an
Investment bank; a securities broker-dealer: an Investment advisor; a financial planner: a flnanclal advisor; or any other person v.110
takes, holds, or controls an asset subject to a conservatorshlp or guardianship other than a financial Institution. Institutions must file a Notice of Taking Possession or Control of an Asset of Minor or Conservatee (form GC-050) for an asset of the conservatee held by the
institution. A slngle form may be filed for all affected assets held by the Institution.

A financial Institution under California Probate Code section 2892(b) Is a bank, a trust, a savings and loan association, a savings bank, an Industrial bank, or a credit union. Financial Institutions must file a Notice of Opening or Changing a Guardianship or Conservatorshlp Account or Safe-Deposit Box (form GC-051) for an account or a safe-deposit box held by the financial Institution. A single form may be filed for all affected accounts or safe-deposit boxes held by the financial Institution.

LETTERS OF CONSERVATORSHIP

AFFIRMATION

I solemnly affirm that I will perform according to law the duties of

129 conservator

0 limited conservator.

;r; 1 Executed on (date): ~

/0!~t (place): Sacramento, California

LisaJ.Berg

(iYPeoRFRINTNAME>

~ ~ ~/ (S~

CERTIFICATION
I certify that this document, Including any attachments, Is a correct copy of the original on file In my office, and that the Letters issued to the person appointed above have not been revoked, annulled, or set aslde, and are still In full force and effect.

Date: HAY 09 2016

-----~-""'1....- "',;.-,~,_..,,,_ Clerk, by

- W a u n ,_,_.,...

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. Deputy

GC-350 1Rev. July 1, 2015]

LETTERS OF CONSERVATORSHIP (Probate-Guardianships and Conservatorshlps)

Page2of 2
A.mrrieanLtpl.Ntt,Inc. ~ www..fonmWorl.'.fJO\!· com ~~

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 44 of 46
EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 45 of 46

GC-350

ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (name, address, and State Bar number):

After recording return to:

CARLENA L. TAPELLA, SB# 160263
WEBB & TAPELLA LAW CORPORATION

7311 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 273

Sacramento, CA 95831-3593

TEL NO.: (916) 447-1675 FAXNO.(optional): (916) 447-8009

E-MAILADDRESS(oprronal): ctapella@probateattorneys.com

ATTORNEY FOR (name): JAMES A . MAYFIELD

i

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

STREET ADDRESS: 222 E. Weber Avenue

MAILINGADDREss: Post Office Box 201022

c1TY AND ZIP coDE: Stockton, CA 9 52 02 -2 7 O9

BRANCH NAME: Probate

FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY

CONSERVATORSHIP OF (name):

CASE NUMBER:

JAMES JOSHUA MAYFIELD, also known as

STK-PR-CE-2016-0000057

JOSHUA MAYFIELD

CONSERVATEE

W Person

LETTERS OF CONSERVATORSHIP

D Estate

O Limited Conservatorship

iJ.a 1.

(Name): JAMES A. MAYFIELD

W D conservator

limited conservator

is the appointed

D of the IJ.a person

estate

of (name): JAMES JOSHUA MAYFIELD, also known as JOSHUA MAYFIELD

D 2.

(For conservatorship that was on December 31, 1980, a guardianship of an adult or of

the person of a married minor) (Name):

D D was appointed the guardian of the

person

estate by order dated

(specify):

D and is now the conservator of the

person

D estate of (name):

W 3.

Other powers have been granted or conditions imposed as follows:

a. IX) Exclusive authority to give consent for and to require the conservatee to receive

,...l,,

.r..:

a
()i

I

~·,,.

!
I '

\.
c

g ' ..

:, o1

" (

r""'!\

-rt'.

1··

C.i

c . .....;1

C·

' ~

r~

t7: ..

;;;;;:',

~.'?!! cou~,r USE ONL y

c;.'\
3
):;ts
-<
N
(..,)

r~.1
'ti
"~~: -n
,_,,.,.
;:' r~..

:=:=:":":

.~..-...n.. ...__....:

CB ...

-{...;""1

-. ···•

~·

medical treatment that the conservator in good faith based on medical advice

determines to be necessary even if the conservatee objects, subject to the limitations

stated in Probate Code section 2356.

D (1)

This treatment shall be performed by an accredited practitioner of the religion whose tenets and p;actices call

for reliance on prayer alone for healing of which the conservatee was an adherent prior to the establishment of

the conservatorship.

D (2)

(If court order limits duration) This medical authority terminates on (date):

D b.

Authority to place the conservatee in a care or nursing facility described in Probate Code section 2356.5(b).

D c.

Authority to authorize the administration of medications appropriate for the care and treatment of dementia described in

Probate Code section 2356.5(c).

D d.

Powers to be exercised independently under Probate Code section 2590 are specified in Attachment 3d (specify powers,

restrictions, conditions, and limitations).

D e.

Conditions relating to the care and custody of property under Probate Code section 2402 are specified in Attachment 3e.

D f.

Conditions relating to the care, treatment, education, and welfare of the conservatee under Probate Code section 2358

are specified in Attachment 3f.

D g.

(For limited conservatorship only) Powers of the limited conservator of the person under Probate Code section 2351.5 are

specified in Attachment 3g.

D h.

(For limited conservatorship only) Powers of the limited conservator of the estate under Probate Code section 1830(b) are

specified in Attachment 3h.

D i.

Other powers granted or conditions imposed are specified in Attachment 3i.

D [ 4.

The conservator is not authorized to take possession of money or any other property without a

I """

[

specific court order.

5. Number of pages attached: 0

WITNESS, clerk of the court, with seal of the court affixed.
Date: ~AY 23 Z016Sara

Clerk, by

This form may be recorded as notice of the establishment of a conservators hip of the estate as provided In Probate Code §1875.

FormAdoptedforMandatoryUse

LETTERS OF CONSERVATORSHIP

EsiNTlALfORMS;;:; Judicial Council of California
GC-3so [Rev. July 1. 20151

Martin Dean~..:

•

•

•

(Probate-Guard1ansh1ps and Conservatorsh1ps)

, Deputy

Page 1of2

Probate Code, §§ 1834, 2890-2893;
Code of Civil Procedure. § 2015.6 www.courts.ca.gov

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 106 Filed 06/20/16 Page 46 of 46

CONSERVATORSHIP OF (name):
JAMES JOSHUA MAYFIELD, also known as MAYFIELD

CASE NUMBER:

GC-350

STK-PR-CE-2016-0000057
CONSERVATEE

NOTICE TO INSTITUTIONS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (Probate Code sections 2890-2893)

When these Letters of Conservatorship (Letters) are delivered to you as an employee or other representative of an institution or financial institution (described below) in order for the conservator of the estate (1) to take possession or control of an asset of the conservatee named above held by your institution (including changing title, withdrawing all or any portion of the asset, or transferring all
or any portion of the asset) or (2) to open or change the name of an account or a safe-deposit box in your financial institution to reflect
the conservatorship, you must fill out Judicial Council form GC-050 (for an institution) or form GC-051 (for a financial institution). An officer authorized by your institution or financial institution must date and sign the form, and you must file the completed form with the court.

There is no filing fee for filing the form. You may either arrange for personal delivery of the form or mail it to the court for filing at the address given for the court on page 1 of these Letters.

The conservator should deliver a blank copy of the appropriate form to you with these Letters, but it is your institution's or financial institution's responsibility to complete the correct form, have an authorized officer sign it, and file the completed form with the court. If the correct form is not delivered with these Letters or is unavailable for any other reason, blank copies of the forms may be obtained from the court. The forms may also be accessed from the judicial branch's public Web site free of charge. The Internet address (URL) is www.courts.ca.gov/forms! Select the form group Probate-Guardianships and Conservatorships and scroll down to form GC-050 for an institution or form GC-051 for a financial institution. The forms may be printed out as blank forms and filled in by typewriter or may be filled out online and printed out ready for signature and filing.

An institution under California Probate Code section 2890(c) is an insurance company, agent, or broker; an investment company; an investment bank; a securities broker-dealer; an investment advisor; a financial planner; a financial advisor; or any other person who takes, holds, or controls an asset subject to a conservatorship or guardianship other than a financial institution. Institutions must file a Notice of Taking Possession or Control of an Asset of Minor or Conservatee (form GC-050) for an asset of the conservatee held by the institution. A single form may be filed for all affected assets held by the institution.

A financial institution under California Probate Code section 2892(b) is a bank, a trust, a savings and loan association, a savings bank, an industrial bank, or a credit union. Financial institutions must file a Notice of Opening or Changing a Guardianship or Conservatorship Account or Safe-Deposit Box (form GC-051) for an account or a safe-deposit box held by the financial institution. A single form may be filed for all affected accounts or safe-deposit boxes held by the financial institution.

---------------· LETTERS OF CONSERVATORSHIP

AFFIRMATION

I solemnly affirm that I will perform according to law the duties of

ID conservator

D limited conservator.

Gl.1'" , Executed on (date): January

2016

,at:lac~ ,~f~

,JAMES 7-"A

MAYFIEI.D
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)

(SIGNATURE OF APPOINTEE)

CERTIFICATION

I certify that this document, including any attachments, is a correct copy of the original on file in my office, and that the Letters issued to

the person appointed above have not been revoked, annulled, or set aside, and are still in full force and effect.
r- (SEAL) - - ------------,
!

L- -·- -· · - -~- :_:_,:_k_. b_y__-__-_..-..-......-. -----····--..-.-....--..-....-... __-_-......-... -----------·------·-·------····---..-...-......-.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

, Deputy

GC-350 [Rev. July 1, 20151

LETTERS OF CONSERVATORSHIP

Page 2 of 2

MoriluDcan's
EsENTiAi FiiRM·s;;;

(Probate-Guardianships and Conservatorships}

 
 Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 399 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 6

1 Barbara Enloe Hadsell, Esq. [S.B. #086021]

Dan Stormer, Esq. [S.B. # 101967]

2 HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP

128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue

3 Pasadena, California 91103

Tel: (626) 585-9600/Fax: (626) 577-7079

4 Emails: bhadsell@hadsellstormer.com

dstormer@hadsellstormer.com

5

Joshua Piovia-Scott, Esq. [S.B. #222364]

6 Lori Rifkin, Esq. [S.B. # 244081]

HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP

7 4300 Horton Street, #15

Emeryville, CA 94608

8 Tel: (415) 685-3591/Fax: (626) 577-7079

Emails: jps@hadsellstormer.com

9

lrifkin@hadsellstormer.com

10 Attorneys for Plaintiff James Joshua Mayfield

11 [Additional counsel cont. next page]

12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 JAMES JOSHUA MAYFIELD, JAMES

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

ALLISON MAYFIELD, JR. and TERRI

16 MAYFIELD,

[Assigned to the Honorable John A. Mendez –

Courtroom 6]

17

Plaintiffs,

JOINT AMENDED ORDER REGARDING

18 vs.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO APPROVE

SETTLEMENT AND ESTABLISH A SPECIAL

19 IVAN OROZCO, in his individual capacity,

NEEDS TRUST

SHERIFF SCOTT JONES, in his individual and

20 official capacity, JAMES LEWIS, in his individual Complaint filed: December 3, 2013

and official capacity, RICK PATTISON, in his

Trial Date:

May 1, 2017

21 individual and official capacity, COUNTY OF

SACRAMENTO, UNIVERSITY OF

22 CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM, DR.

GREGORY SOKOLOV, in his individual

23 capacity, DR. ROBERT HALES, in his individual

capacity, and Does 1-5,

24

Defendants.

25

26

27

28

JOINT AMENDED [PROP] ORDER RE: PLTF’S MTN TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 399 Filed 11/06/17 Page 2 of 6

1 [Additional Counsel cont. from previous page]

2 Carl J. Calnero, Esq. [S.B. #117590]

John Whitefleet, Esq. [S.B. #213301]

3 Charles M.Gnekow, Esq. [S.B. #306669]

PORTER SCOTT

4 350 University Avenue, Suite 200

Sacramento, California 95825

5 Telephone: (916) 929-1481

Facsimile: (916) 927-3706

6 Emails: ccalnero@porterscott.com

jwhitefleet@porterscott.com

7

cgnekow@porterscott.com

8 Attorneys for Defendant IVAN OROZCO

9 Van Longyear, Esq. [S.B. #84189]

Peter C. Zilaff, Esq. [S.B. #27658]

10 Nicole Cahill, Esq. [S.B. #287165]

LONGYEAR, O’DEA & LAVRA, LLP

11 3620 American River Drive, Suite 230

Sacramento, California 95864-5923

12 Telephone: (916) 974-8500

Facsimile: (916) 974-8510

13 Emails: longyear@longyearlaw.com

zilaff@longyearlaw.com

14

cahill@longyearlaw.com

15 Richard S. Linkert, Esq. (SBN 88756)

Jack A. Klauschie, Jr., Esq. (SBN 094029)

16 Brian D. Johnson, Esq. (SBN 266513)

MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME LLP

17 3638 American River Drive

Sacramento, CA 95864

18 Telephone: (916) 978-3434

Facsimile: (916) 978-3430

19 Emails: rlinkert@mathenysears.com

jklauschie@mathenysears.com

20

bjohnson@mathenysears.com

21 Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SCOTT JONES, JAMES LEWIS AND
RICK PATTISON
22
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD & BIRNEY, LLP
23 SCOTT L. GASSAWAY (SBN 53581)
sgassaway@wilkefleury.com
24 ROBERT F. TYLER, JR. (SBN 63055)
rtyler@wilkefleury.com
25 NEAL C. LUTTERMAN
nlutterman@wilkefleury.com (SBN 174681)
26 BIANCA S. WATTS (SBN 278231)
bwatts@wilkefleury.com
27 400 Capitol Mall, Twenty-Second Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
28 Telephone: (916) 441-2430

JOINT AMENDED [PROP] ORDER RE: PLTFS’ MTN TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT

Case No : 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 399 Filed 11/06/17 Page 3 of 6

1 Facsimile: (916) 442-6664

2 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
GREGORY G. LYNCH (SBN 119996)
3 Greg.lynch@lewisbrisbois.com
JOHN J. WEBER (SBN 054774)
4 John.weber@lewisbrisbois.com
KIM M. WELLS (SBN 232279)
5 Kim.wells@lewisbrisbois.com
6333 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
6 Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (213) 250-1800
7 Facsimile: (213) 250-7900

8 Attorneys for Defendants
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, now sued as the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
9 DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM, DR. GREGORY SOKOLOV, sued in his individual capacity, and DR.
ROBERT HALES, sued in his individual capacity
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
JOINT AMENDED [PROP] ORDER RE: PLTFS’ MTN TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT

Case No : 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 399 Filed 11/06/17 Page 4 of 6

1

ORDER

2

All Parties to this matter submit the following Joint Amended [Proposed] Order Regarding

3 Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to Approve Settlement and Establish a Special Needs Trust.

4

Having considered the moving papers, arguments of counsel, the documents on file in this case,

5 and after a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Approve Settlement and Establish a Special Needs Trust, IT

6 IS HEREBY ORDERED:

7

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Approve Settlement and Establish a Special Needs Trust is granted in part

8 and denied in part.

9

10 1. Motion to Approve Settlement

11

The Court denies the request that James Allison Mayfield, Jr. and Terri Mayfield receive 15% of

12 the total settlement but grants the request to approve the settlement with James Allison Mayfield, Jr. and

13 Terri Mayfield receiving 5% of the total settlement. The Court orders that James Joshua Mayfield is to

14 receive 95% of the settlement proceeds and that Plaintiffs’ counsel is to receive 40% of the total

15 settlement for attorneys’ fees, as well as the costs identified below.

16

Based on the foregoing, the Court orders that the settlement proceeds in this case be distributed as

17 follows:

18

A. Settlement Proceeds to James Joshua Mayfield

19

Total = $5,0000,000

20

95% of total = $4,750,000

21

40% fees from $4,750,000 = $1,900,000

$4,750,000 - $1,900,000 = $2,850,000 22

23

Total costs = $388,721.34

95% of total = $369,285.27

24 $2,850,000 - $369,285.27 = $2,480,714.73
25

Total to James Joshua Mayfield = $2,480,714.73 26

27

Total to the James Joshua Mayfield Special Needs Trust from Defendant the Regents of the

University of California = $1,240,357.36

28

JOINT AMENDED [PROP] ORDER RE: PLTF’S MTN TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT

-1-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 399 Filed 11/06/17 Page 5 of 6

1

Total to the James Joshua Mayfield Special Needs Trust from Defendant County of Sacramento = $1,240,357.37

2

3

B. Settlement Proceeds to James Allison Mayfield, Jr. and Terri Mayfield

4

Total = $5,000,000

5% of total = $250,000 5

6

40% of fees from $250,000 = $100,000

$250,000 - $100,000 = $150,000

7

Total costs = $388,721.34

8

5% of total = $19,436.07

9

$150,000 - $19,436.07 = $130,563.93

10 Total to James Allison Mayfield, Jr. and Terri Mayfield = $130,563.93
11

12

Based on the foregoing, the Court orders that a total of $2,480.714.73 be placed in the James

13 Joshua Mayfield Special Needs Trust and that $2,519,285.27 be paid to the Hadsell Stormer & Renick

14 client trust account for the distribution to James Allison Mayfield, Jr. and Terri Mayfield, and for

15 Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs.

16

Total to the Hadsell Stormer & Renick client trust account from Defendant the Regents of the

17 University of California = $1,259,642.64.

18

Total to the Hadsell Stormer & Renick client trust account from Defendant County of Sacramento

19 = $1,259,642.63.

20

Defendants are to provide these payments within 30 days of this Order.

21

22 2. Motion to Establish a Special Needs Trust for James Joshua Mayfield

23

The Court grants the Motion to Establish a Special Needs Trust and orders the following with

24 regard to the James Joshua Mayfield Special Needs Trust:

25

1. The United States District Court, Eastern District of California establishes the James

26 Joshua Mayfield Special Needs Trust and Lisa Berg is directed to execute it on behalf of James Joshua

27 Mayfield;

28

2. The Trustee shall petition the San Joaquin County Probate Court to bring the James

JOINT AMENDED [PROP] ORDER RE: PLTF’S MTN TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT

-2-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

Case 2:13-cv-02499-JAM-AC Document 399 Filed 11/06/17 Page 6 of 6

1 Joshua Mayfield Special Needs Trust under its ongoing court jurisdiction as defined by California Rule

2 of Court 7.903;

3

3. The payment of all monies due James Joshua Mayfield in this settlement shall be paid

4 directly to the James Joshua Mayfield Special Needs Trust;

5

4. Lisa Berg shall serve as the initial Trustee of the James Joshua Mayfield Special Needs

6 Trust with bond to be filed in the amount required by California Rules of Court 7.207 in the San Joaquin

7 County Probate Court;

8

5. Any past or future compensation owed to the parents of James Joshua Mayfield for his

9 caregiving and services is to be determined by the San Joaquin County Probate Court, this Court has not

10 considered that issue;

11

6. The Court finds that James Joshua Mayfield has a disability that substantially impairs his

12 ability to provide for his own care or custody, and constitutes a substantial handicap;

13

7. The Court finds that James Joshua Mayfield is likely to have special needs that will not be

14 met without the Trust;

15

8. The Court finds that the money to be paid to the Trust does not exceed the amount that

16 appears reasonably necessary to meet James Joshua Mayfield’s special needs;

17

9. The Trustee of the James Joshua Mayfield Special Needs Trust is authorized to invest in

18 mutual funds and bonds with maturity dates greater than five years; and

19

10. The Court approves and directs the payment of $4,215 to The Urbatsch Law Firm, P.C.,

20 for the legal services rendered to James Joshua Mayfield.

21

22

23 24 Dated: 11/6/2017
25

/s/ John A. Mendez____________ JOHN A. MENDEZ United States District Court Judge

26

27

28

JOINT AMENDED [PROP] ORDER RE: PLTF’S MTN TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT

-3-

Case No.: 2:13-CV-02499-JAM-AC

 
 Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 1 of 37
CIVIL,CLOSED
U.S. District Court Eastern District of California − Live System (Sacramento)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:13−cv−02499−JAM−AC

Mayfield v. Orozco, et al. Assigned to: District Judge John A. Mendez Referred to: Magistrate Judge Allison Claire Demand: $2,500,000 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
James J. Mayfield

Date Filed: 12/03/2013 Date Terminated: 12/27/2017 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Barbara Enloe Hadsell Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP 128 N. Fair Oaks Ave. Pasadena, CA 91103 626−585−9600 Fax: 626−577−7079 Email: bhadsell@hadsellstormer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Piovia−Scott Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP 4300 Horton Street, #15 Emeryville, CA 94608 415−685−3591 Fax: 626−577−7079 Email: jps@hadsellstormer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mohammad Tajsar Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, CA 91103 626−585−9600 Fax: 626−577−7079 Email: mtajsar@hadsellstormer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron Joseph Fischer Disability Rights California 1330 Broadway, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 510−267−1268 Fax: 510−267−1201 Email: aaron.fischer@disabilityrightsca.org TERMINATED: 09/18/2014
Acrivi Coromelas AUSA − Office of the US Attorney 300 North Los Angeles Street Suite 7516 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−894−2404 Fax: 213−894−7819 Email: acrivi.coromelas@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 02/24/2017
Caitlan Lisette McLoon Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 2 of 37
128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue Suite 204 Pasadena, CA 91003 (626) 585−9600 Fax: (626) 577−7079 Email: cmcloon@hadsellstormer.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Stormer Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP The Marine Building 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, CA 91103 626−585−9600 Fax: 626−577−7079 Email: dstormer@hadsellstormer.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest Galvan Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 101 Mission Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105−1738 415−433−6830 x223 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: egalvan@rbgg.com TERMINATED: 09/18/2014
Lori Rifkin Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP 4300 Horton Street Suite 15 Emeryville, CA 94608 415−685−3591 Fax: 626−577−7079 Email: lrifkin@hadsellstormer.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Bien Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 50 Fremont St. 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: mbien@rbgg.com TERMINATED: 09/18/2014
Michael D. Millen Law Office of Michael Millen 119 Calle Marguerita #100 Los Gatos, CA 95032 408−871−0777 Fax: 408−516−9861 Email: MikeMillen@aol.com TERMINATED: 09/18/2014

V.
Defendant
Ivan Orozco Deputy Sheriff, Sacramento County Sheriff's Department

represented by John Robert Whitefleet Porter Scott, APC 350 University Ave. Suite 200

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 3 of 37

Sacramento, CA 95823 916−929−1481 Ext. 347 Fax: 916−927−3706 Email: jwhitefleet@porterscott.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam James DeBow Porter Scott 350 University Avenue Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 929−1481 Fax: (916) 927−3706 Email: adebow@porterscott.com TERMINATED: 04/04/2017

Carl Calnero Porter Scott P.O. Box 255428 350 University Ave. Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 916−929−1481−303 Email: ccalnero@porterscott.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles M.B. Gnekow Porter Scott 350 University Avenue, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 916−929−1481 Email: cgnekow@porterscott.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren E. Calnero Porter Scott 350 University Ave. Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 916−929−1481 Email: lcalnero@porterscott.com TERMINATED: 05/02/2016

Terence John Cassidy Porter Scott, APC 350 University Avenue Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 916−929−1481 x316 Fax: 916−927−3706 Email: tjcass@comcast.net TERMINATED: 05/02/2016

Defendant County of Sacramento

represented by Dayton Van Vranken Longyear Longyear O'Dea & Lavra, LLP 3620 American River Drive Suite 230 Sacramento, CA 95864 916−974−8500 ext. 101 Fax: 916−974−8510 Email: longyear@longyearlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 4 of 37

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jack A. Klauschie , Jr. Matheny Sears Linkert & Jaime PO Box 13711 3638 American River Dr. Sacramento, CA 95853−4711 916−978−3434 Fax: 916−978−3430 Email: jklauschie@mathenysears.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Marie Cahill Longyear, O'Dea & Lavra, LLP 3620 American River Dr. Suite 230 Sacramento, CA 95864 916−974−8500 Fax: 916−974−8510 Email: rippy@longyearlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter C. Zilaff Sacramento County Counsel 700 H Street, Suite 2650 Sacramento, CA 95814 916−874−5319 Fax: 916−874−8207 Email: zilaffp@saccounty.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Stone Linkert Matheny Sears Linkert and Jaime LLP 3638 American River Dr. P.O. Box 13711 Sacramento, CA 95853−4711 916−978−3434 Fax: 916 978 3430 Email: rlinkert@mathenysears.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian D. Johnson Mathen Sears Linkert & Jaime, LLP 3638 American River Drive Sacramento, CA 95864−5901 916−978−3434 Fax: 916−978−3430 Email: bjohnson@mathenysears.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Scott Jones Sheriff

represented by Dayton Van Vranken Longyear (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jack A. Klauschie , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 5 of 37

Defendant James Lewis
Defendant Rick Pattison

Nicole Marie Cahill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter C. Zilaff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Stone Linkert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian D. Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dayton Van Vranken Longyear (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jack A. Klauschie , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Marie Cahill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter C. Zilaff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Stone Linkert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian D. Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dayton Van Vranken Longyear (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jack A. Klauschie , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Marie Cahill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 6 of 37

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter C. Zilaff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Stone Linkert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian D. Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Regents of the University of California TERMINATED: 05/15/2015

represented by Bianca S. Samuel Wilke Fleury Hoffelt Gould & Birney 400 Capitol Mall, 22nd Fl Sacramento, CA 95834 916−441−2430 Fax: 916−442−6664 Email: bsamuel@wilkefleury.com

Gregory Gordon Lynch Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−250−1800−7927 Fax: 213−250−7900 Email: greg.lynch@lewisbrisbois.com

John Joseph Weber Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP 633 West 5th Street Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−680−5070 Fax: 213−250−7900 Email: John.Weber@lewisbrisbois.com

Kim M. Wells Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700 Sacramento, CA 95833 916−646−8269 Fax: 916−564−5444 Email: Kim.Wells@lewisbrisbois.com

Neal Christopher Lutterman Wilke Fleury Hoffelt Gould & Birney 400 Capitol Mall 22nd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 916−441−2430 Fax: 916−442−6664 Email: nlutterman@wilkefleury.com

Robert Frederick Tyler , Jr Wilke Fleury Hoffelt Gould and Birney 400 Capitol Mall 22nd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 7 of 37

916−441−2430 Email: rtyler@wilkefleury.com

Defendant
Gregory Sokolov Doctor

represented by Bianca S. Samuel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory Gordon Lynch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Joseph Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim M. Wells (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neal Christopher Lutterman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Frederick Tyler , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
University of California Davis Health System

represented by Bianca S. Samuel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory Gordon Lynch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Joseph Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim M. Wells (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neal Christopher Lutterman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Frederick Tyler , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 8 of 37

Defendant Dr. Charles Scott TERMINATED: 06/17/2016
Defendant Dr. Robert Hales
Movant Armani Lee
Movant Leertese Beirge Movant Ricky Lee Richardson, Jr.

represented by Gregory Gordon Lynch (See above for address)
John Joseph Weber (See above for address)
Kim M. Wells (See above for address)
Neal Christopher Lutterman (See above for address)
Robert Frederick Tyler , Jr (See above for address)
represented by Bianca S. Samuel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory Gordon Lynch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Joseph Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neal Christopher Lutterman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Frederick Tyler , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Margot Knight Mendelson Prison Law Office 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 510−280−2621 Email: mmendelson@prisonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Margot Knight Mendelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Margot Knight Mendelson (See above for address)

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 9 of 37

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Cody Garland

represented by Margot Knight Mendelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Lorenzo Mays

represented by Margot Knight Mendelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Jennifer Bothun

represented by Margot Knight Mendelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/03/2013 12/03/2013 12/03/2013 01/02/2014
01/02/2014 01/02/2014 01/02/2014 03/26/2014 03/26/2014
04/07/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against all defendants by James J. Mayfield. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Michel, G) (Entered: 12/03/2013)
2 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by James J. Mayfield. (Michel, G) (Entered: 12/03/2013)
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IFP filed − Action Required. (Michel, G) (Entered: 12/03/2013)
3 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/31/13 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED; The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM−285 form for each defendant, one summons, a copy of the complaint, an appropriate form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge,and this court's status order. The Clerk is further directed to serve a copy of this order on the USM. Within 15 days Plaintiff shall submit service documents to the USM and file a statement with the court that said documents have been submitted. (cc: USM). (Becknal, R) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
4 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *County of Sacramento, Ivan Orozco* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *James J. Mayfield, Pro Se* *4401 Burr Court* *Tracy, CA 95377*. (Becknal, R) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
5 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED Initial Scheduling Conference set for 6/4/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Becknal, R) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 3 4 5 Order, USM−285 forms, Summons and New Case Documents served on James J. Mayfield. (Becknal, R) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against County of Sacramento, Ivan Orozco, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison by James J. Mayfield.(Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
7 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Ivan Orozco, Rick Pattison* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *James J. Mayfield* *4401 Burr Court* *Tracy, CA 95377*. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
8 PROOF OF SERVICE EXECUTED: County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Ivan Orozco, Rick Pattison served on 3/26/2014. (Meuleman, A) Modified on 4/8/2014 (Meuleman, A). (Entered: 04/08/2014)

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 10 of 37

04/17/2014
05/30/2014
05/30/2014 06/02/2014 06/03/2014
06/03/2014 07/14/2014 07/15/2014
07/15/2014
07/31/2014 08/01/2014
08/01/2014 08/01/2014 08/01/2014 08/01/2014 08/12/2014
09/17/2014

9 ANSWER to 6 First Amended Complaint, with Jury Demand, by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison. Attorney Longyear, Dayton Van Vranken ADDED. (Longyear, Dayton) Modified on 4/18/2014 (Michel, G). (Entered: 04/17/2014)
10 MINUTE ORDER: (Text Only) re 5 Civil New Case Documents for JAM. In light of the parties' failure to file status reports prior to the June 4, 2014 Initial Scheduling Conference, this conference is hereby continued to August 6, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 26. The parties are directed to refer to the Court's January 2, 2014 Order Setting Status Conference (ECF No. 5) for a list of matters to be addressed in the status reports. These reports are to be filed no later than July 23, 2014. Failure to file a status report may result in sanctions. (Callen, V) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 10 Minute Order,, served on James J. Mayfield. (Callen, V) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
11 MOTION to CONTINUE Scheduling Conference by James J. Mayfield. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proof of Service)(Meuleman, A) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
12 MINUTE ORDER: (Text Only) re 11 Motion to Continue. In light of the May 30, 2014 Minute Order this matter is hereby continued to August 6, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. The Plaintiff's Motion to Continue [ECF No. 11] is moot given the fact that this hearing has already been continued. (Callen, V) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 12 Minute Order, served on James J. Mayfield. (Callen, V) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
13 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Michael Bien on behalf of James J. Mayfield. Attorney Bien, Michael added. (Bien, Michael) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
14 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/15/14 ORDERING that this matter is referred back to the District Judge assigned to this action; and all dates pending before the undersigned, including the 8/6/14 initial scheduling conference, are vacated. (Becknal, R) (Entered: 07/15/2014)
15 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy J. Streeter for Judge John A. Mendez on 07/15/2014: In light of Magistrate Judge Allison Claire's Order 14 refering this matter back to the district judge, the parties are instructed to file a Joint Status Report not later than August 15, 2014.(Streeter, J) (Entered: 07/15/2014)
16 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by Ivan Orozco. Attorney Cassidy, Terence John ADDED. (Cassidy, Terence) Modified on 7/31/2014 (Michel, G). (Entered: 07/31/2014)
17 MOTION to WITHDRAW as ATTORNEY re: Michael W. Bien, Ernest Galvan, Aaron J. Fischer, and Michael Millen and for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing set for 9/17/2014 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael Millen, # 2 Proposed Order)(Bien, Michael) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
18 NOTICE of Request to Seal Document(s) pursuant to L.R. 141 by James J. Mayfield. (Bien, Michael) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
19 SEALED EVENT (Michel, G) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
20 SEALED EVENT (Michel, G) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
21 SEALED EVENT (Michel, G) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
23 MINUTE ORDER: In view of the pending motion to withdraw as counsel 17 set for hearing on September 17, 2014, the Courts minute order 15 requiring the parties to file a joint status report by August 15, 2014 is ordered vacated. (TEXT ENTRY ONLY (Vine, H) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
24 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Judge John A. Mendez: MOTION HEARING held on 9/17/2014 ; granting 17 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Court has permitted plaintiff (90) NINETY days (12/19/2014) to secure new counsel. If this is not accomplished, the matter will be referred to Magistrate Judge Claire pursuant to

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 11 of 37

09/18/2014
11/05/2014 11/06/2014 11/13/2014 11/13/2014 12/18/2014 02/17/2015 02/18/2015 03/13/2015 03/18/2015
03/19/2015
03/19/2015 03/19/2015
04/06/2015 04/06/2015 04/06/2015 04/09/2015

Local Rule. Plaintiffs Counsel A. Fischer; M. Millen present. Defendants Counsel K. Hall; P. Zilaff present. Court Reporter: K. Bennett. (Vine, H) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
25 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/17/2014 GRANTING plaintiff's 17 Motion to Withdraw. Attorneys Ernest Galvan, Michael D Millen, Michael Bien, and Aaron Joseph Fischer are WITHDRAWN as counsel of record. The time for parties to submit Joint Status Report is EXTENDED to 11/13/2014. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
26 PROPOSED ORDER requesting extension of time to submit Joint Status Report by defendants. (Longyear, Dayton) Modified on 11/6/2014 (Marciel, M) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
27 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/5/14 ORDERING that the deadline for filing a Joint Status Conference is CONTINUED to 2/17/2015. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 27 Order, served on James J. Mayfield. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
SERVICE BY MAIL: 25 Order granting Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel served on plaintiff James J. Mayfield. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
28 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Lori Rifkin on behalf of James J. Mayfield. Attorney Rifkin, Lori added. (Rifkin, Lori) (Entered: 12/18/2014)
29 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER extending time to submit Joint Status Report by defendants. (Longyear, Dayton) Modified on 2/18/2015 (Marciel, M) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
30 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 2/17/15: The time for the Parties to file the Joint Status Report be, and hereby is, extended to April 17, 2015. (Kaminski, H) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
31 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Barbara Enloe Hadsell on behalf of James J. Mayfield. Attorney Hadsell, Barbara Enloe added. (Hadsell, Barbara) (Entered: 03/13/2015)
32 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for plaintiff to file Second Amended Complaint by James J. Mayfield. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit − Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order) (Hadsell, Barbara) Modified on 3/20/2015 (Marciel, M) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
33 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/18/2015 GRANTING 32 Stipulation to file second amended complaint. The Second Amended Complaint, attached as Exhibit A to the Stipulation, is deemed filed as of this date. Defendants shall have twenty−one calendar days to file a Response to the Second Amended Complaint. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 03/19/2015)
34 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against all Defendants by James J. Mayfield. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 03/19/2015)
35 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Regents of the University of California, Gregory Sokolov* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Barbara Enloe Hadsell* *Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP* *128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue* *Pasadena, CA 91103*. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 03/19/2015)
36 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: Regents of the University of California served on 3/30/2015, answer due 4/20/2015. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/06/2015)
37 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: Gregory Sokolov served on 3/30/2015, answer due 4/20/2015. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/06/2015)
38 ANSWER with Jury Demand by Ivan Orozco.(Cassidy, Terence) (Entered: 04/06/2015)
39 ANSWER with Jury Demand by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison. Attorney Zilaff, Peter Carlberg added.(Zilaff, Peter) (Entered:

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 12 of 37

04/17/2015 04/20/2015
04/20/2015
04/20/2015 04/20/2015 05/05/2015 05/06/2015 05/15/2015
05/15/2015 06/03/2015 06/03/2015 06/17/2015 06/17/2015

04/09/2015)
40 JOINT STATUS REPORT by James J. Mayfield. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/17/2015)
41 STATUS PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 04/17/15: ORDERING that: Discovery due by 10/14/2016; Designation of Expert Witnesses due by 8/12/2016 with any supplemental due by 08/26/16; Dispositive Motions filed by 11/16/2016; Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/24/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez with the joint pretrial statement due 7 days prior; Jury Trial set for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due with 7 days. (Benson, A) (Entered: 04/20/2015)
42 MOTION to DISMISS for LACK of JURISDICTION for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted and/or MOTION to STRIKE (FRCP 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 12(f)) by Regents of the University of California, Gregory Sokolov. Attorney Tyler, Robert Frederick added. Motion Hearing set for 5/20/2016 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points & Authorities)(Tyler, Robert) Modified on 4/22/2015 (Meuleman, A). (Entered: 04/20/2015)
43 ANSWER with Jury Demand by Regents of the University of California, Gregory Sokolov.(Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 04/20/2015)
44 STATUS REPORT by Regents of the University of California, Gregory Sokolov. (Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 04/20/2015)
45 STIPULATION and [PROPOSED] ORDER to Continue Hearings on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and Strike 42 by Regents of the University of California, Gregory Sokolov. (Tyler, Robert) Modified on 5/7/2015 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 05/05/2015)
46 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/5/15: HEARING as to 42 MOTION to DISMISS for LACK of JURISDICTION RESET for 7/1/2015 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez. (Kaminski, H) (Entered: 05/06/2015)
47 MOTION to FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing set for 7/1/2015 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Joshua Piovia−Scott, # 2 Exhibits 1−7, # 3 Proposed Third Amended Complaint, # 4 Proposed Order)(Piovia−Scott, Joshua) Modified on 5/18/2015 (Benson, A). (Entered: 05/15/2015)
57 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT against County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Ivan Orozco, Rick Pattison, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System, Charles Scott, Robert Hales by James J. Mayfield.(Donati, J) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
48 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION by Regents of the University of California, Gregory Sokolov to 47 Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. (Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 06/03/2015)
49 NOTICE OF WITHDRAW of pending 12b motions to plaintiffs' second amended complanint by Regents of the University of CA, Gregory Sokolov re 42 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted and/or Motion to Strike (FRCP 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 12(f)). (Tyler, Robert) Modified on 6/4/2015 (Reader, L). (Entered: 06/03/2015)
50 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison to 47 Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. (Zilaff, Peter) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
51 STATEMENT of Non−Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint by Defendant Ivan Orozco. (Cassidy, Terence) (Entered: 06/17/2015)

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 13 of 37

06/22/2015
07/06/2015 07/06/2015
07/09/2015 07/13/2015 07/15/2015
07/15/2015 07/15/2015 07/15/2015 07/21/2015 07/28/2015 07/28/2015 07/28/2015 08/18/2015 08/19/2015 08/26/2015 09/02/2015

52 MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiffs James Joshua Mayfield, James Allison Mayfield, Jr., and Terri Lynn Mayfield (Plaintiffs) filed a motion for leave [Doc. #47] to file a third amended complaint (TAC). Three separate statements of non−opposition were filed, respectively on behalf of: (1) Defendants Gregory Sokolov and Regents of the University of California [Doc. #48]; (2) Defendants County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis and Rick Pattison [Doc. #50]; and (3) Defendant Ivan Orozco [Doc. #51]. Good cause having been shown, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion. The TAC [Doc. #47−3], attached to Plaintiffs motion, is deemed filed as of this date. IT IS SO ORDERED. (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
53 ANSWER with Jury Demand by Regents of the University of California, Gregory Sokolov.(Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
54 MOTION to DISMISS for LACK of JURISDICTION of Third Amended Complaint by Regents of the University of California, Gregory Sokolov. Motion Hearing set for 9/2/2015 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Motion To Dismiss Third Amended Complaint)(Tyler, Robert) Modified on 8/27/2015 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 07/06/2015)
55 ANSWER with Jury Demand by Ivan Orozco.(Cassidy, Terence) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
56 ANSWER to Third Amended Complaint, with Jury Demand, by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison. (Zilaff, Peter) Modified on 7/14/2015 (Michel, G.). (Entered: 07/13/2015)
58 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Robert Hales, Charles Scott, University of California Davis Health System* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Joshua Piovia−Scott* *Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP* *128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue* *Pasadena, CA 91103*. (Donati, J) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
59 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: Charles Scott served on 7/7/2015. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) Modified on 7/16/2015 (Michel, G.). (Entered: 07/15/2015)
60 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: Robert Hales served on 7/7/2015. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) Modified on 7/16/2015 (Michel, G.). (Entered: 07/15/2015)
61 PROPOSED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by James J. Mayfield. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) Modified on 7/16/2015 (Michel, G.). (Entered: 07/15/2015)
62 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/20/2015. (Michel, G.) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
63 ANSWER with Jury Demand by Robert Hales.(Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 07/28/2015)
64 ANSWER with Jury Demand by Charles Scott.(Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 07/28/2015)
65 JOINDER by Robert Hales, Charles Scott in re 54 MOTION to DISMISS for LACK of JURISDICTION of Third Amended Complaint filed by Gregory Sokolov, Regents of the University of California. (Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 07/28/2015)
66 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison to 54 MOTION to DISMISS for LACK of JURISDICTION of Third Amended Complaint. (Zilaff, Peter) (Entered: 08/18/2015)
67 OPPOSITION by James J. Mayfield to 54 MOTION to DISMISS for LACK of JURISDICTION of Third Amended Complaint. (Rifkin, Lori) (Entered: 08/19/2015)
68 REPLY MEMORANDUM by Defendants to Plaintiffs' OPPOSITION to 54 MOTION to DISMISS for LACK of JURISDICTION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Tyler, Robert) Modified on 8/27/2015 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 08/26/2015)
69 MINUTES AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Text Only) for proceedings before Judge John A. Mendez: A hearing was held on 9/2/2015 on the MOTION to DISMISS for LACK of JURISDICTION [Doc. #54] filed by Defendants University of California Davis Health System (UCDHS) and Gregory Sokolov, and joined by Defendants Robert Hales and Charles Scott [Doc. #65]. The motion was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs counsel will submit a proposed order. The Court further

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 14 of 37

09/02/2015 09/03/2015 09/10/2015 02/25/2016 05/02/2016 05/18/2016
05/18/2016
05/19/2016
05/19/2016
05/19/2016
05/24/2016 05/25/2016

orders Defendants Counsel, Robert F. Tyler and Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Briney, LLP, to show cause why the Court should not impose sanctions for their failure to appear. Defendants counsel is ordered to respond no later than 12 noon tomorrow (September 3, 2015). IT IS SO ORDERED.Plaintiffs Counsel L Rifkin present. Defendants Counsel no appearance was made.Court Reporter: C. Bodene. (Vine, H) (Entered: 09/02/2015)
70 MINUTE ORDER: OSC is vacated. IT IS SO ORDERED (TEXT ENTRY ONLY)(Vine, H) (Entered: 09/02/2015)
71 PROPOSED ORDER re 54 MOTION to DISMISS, 65 Joinder by James J. Mayfield. (Rifkin, Lori) Modified on 9/4/2015 (Kaminski, H). (Entered: 09/03/2015)
72 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/9/15: 54 MOTION to DISMISS is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (Kaminski, H) (Entered: 09/10/2015)
73 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Acrivi Coromelas on behalf of James J. Mayfield. Attorney Coromelas, Acrivi added. (Coromelas, Acrivi) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
74 DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney John Robert Whitefleet,Adam James DeBow for Ivan Orozco, attorney Lauren E. Calnero and Terence John Cassidy terminated (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
75 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Responses to Interrogatories by Defendants Jones, Lewis, Pattison, and County of Sacramento by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing set for 6/6/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Coromelas, Acrivi) Modified on 5/19/2016 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 05/18/2016)
76 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Responses to Interrogatories by Defendants University of California Davis Health System, Sokolov, and Hales by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing set for 6/6/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Coromelas, Acrivi) Modified on 5/19/2016 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 05/18/2016)
77 MINUTE ORDER: (Text Only) re 76 Motion for Discovery. The plaintiffs in this matter have filed a discovery motion before the Honorable Allison Claire, U.S. Magistrate Judge with the incorrect date of June 6, 2016. This court's civil law and motion calendars are held on Wednesdays at 10:00 a.m. Please call the Chamber's Telephone line at (916)930−4199 for the correct date. Failure to properly schedule your motion will result in the matter being vacated altogether. (Callen, V) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
78 NOTICE to RESCHEDULE HEARING on 75 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses to Interrogatories by Defendants Jones, Lewis, Pattison, and County of Sacramento: Motion Hearing set for 6/8/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Coromelas, Acrivi) Modified on 5/19/2016 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 05/19/2016)
79 NOTICE to RESCHEDULE HEARING on 76 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses to Interrogatories by Defendants University of California Davis Health System, Sokolov, and Hales : Motion Hearing set for 6/8/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Coromelas, Acrivi) Modified on 5/19/2016 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 05/19/2016)
80 REQUEST for Use of Courthouse for the Deposition of Plaintiff by James J. Mayfield. (Hadsell, Barbara) Modified on 5/25/2016 (Washington, S). (Entered: 05/24/2016)
81 MINUTE ORDER: (Text Only). The parties in this matter have requested an informal telephone conference. The conference is scheduled for 5/27/2016 at 11:30 a.m. By close of business day May 26, 2016 the parties shall file a joint letter briefly explaining what meet and confer efforts had been undertaken and provide a synopsis of the discovery dispute. The joint letter brief shall be no more than two (2) pages in length, including any exhibits or attachments (which are discouraged), and shall be in at least 12−point type. Pages exceeding this limit will not be considered. The letter shall be emailed to acorders@caed.uscourts.gov. No paper courtesy copy is required. The parties shall telephone the Chambers of Judge Claire no later than 11:25 a.m. on the morning of the conference. At such time you will be connected to the Judge for the

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 15 of 37

05/26/2016 05/27/2016
05/27/2016 06/01/2016 06/01/2016 06/01/2016 06/01/2016 06/01/2016 06/01/2016 06/01/2016 06/01/2016 06/02/2016 06/02/2016

conference. (Callen, V) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
82 DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Nicole Marie Rippy for County of Sacramento,Nicole Marie Rippy for Scott Jones,Nicole Marie Rippy for James Lewis,Nicole Marie Rippy for Rick Pattison (Rippy, Nicole) (Entered: 05/26/2016)
83 MINUTE ORDER: (Text Only). The court held an informal telephonic discovery conference. Lori Rifkin and Acrivi Coromelas appeared for plaintiffs; Neal Lutterman appeared for defendant UCDHS; Adam DeBow and John Whitefleet appeared for defendant Orozco; and Nicole Cahill appeared for defendant Sacramento County. Following discussion the court ruled as follows: Plaintiffs' Rule 34(a)(2) inspection of the Sacramento County Jail, scheduled for May 31, 2016, may include questions to jail staff regarding routine jail operations. Defendants' objections to such questioning are overruled. Plaintiff may not inquire regarding the incidents at issue in this action. Magistrate Judge Delaney will be on call on May 31 if the parties require resolution of any disputes that may arise during the inspection regarding the scope of permissible questions. (Callen, V) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
84 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire: INFORMAL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 5/27/2016. Plaintiffs Counsel Lori Rifkin and Acrivi Coromelas present. Defendants Counsel Neal Lutterman present. (Callen, V) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
85 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Caitlan Lisette McLoon on behalf of James J. Mayfield. Attorney McLoon, Caitlan Lisette added. (McLoon, Caitlan) (Entered: 06/01/2016)
86 DECLARATION of Nicole M. Cahill in SUPPORT OF 75 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses to Interrogatories. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Rippy, Nicole) (Entered: 06/01/2016)
87 Joint STATEMENT Regarding Discovery Dispute Re 75 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses to Interrogatories. (Coromelas, Acrivi) Modified on 6/2/2016 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 06/01/2016)
88 DECLARATION of Acrivi Coromelas in SUPPORT OF 75 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses to Interrogatories. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−D, # 2 Exhibits E−F, # 3 Exhibits G−H, # 4 Exhibits I−M)(Coromelas, Acrivi) Modified on 6/2/2016 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 06/01/2016)
89 DECLARATION of Caitlan McLoon in SUPPORT of 75 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses to Interrogatories. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits N−FF)(McLoon, Caitlan) Modified on 6/2/2016 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 06/01/2016)
90 STATEMENT of Plaintiffs Regarding Discovery Dispute Re 76 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses. (Coromelas, Acrivi) Modified on 6/2/2016 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 06/01/2016)
91 DECLARATION of Acrivi Coromelas in SUPPORT OF 76 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1−3, # 2 Exhibits 4−5, # 3 Exhibits 6−7, # 4 Exhibits 8−10, # 5 Exhibits 11−15, # 6 Exhibits 16−22, # 7 Exhibits 23−26, # 8 Exhibits 27−35)(Coromelas, Acrivi) Modified on 6/2/2016 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 06/01/2016)
92 DECLARATION of Caitlan McLoon in SUPPORT of 76 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 36−45, # 2 Exhibits 46−55)(McLoon, Caitlan) Modified on 6/2/2016 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 06/01/2016)
93 DECLARATION of Robert F. Tyler, Jr. in SUPPORT OF 76 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C & D to Decl. of Robert F. Tyler, Jr.)(Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 06/02/2016)
94 PROPOSED JOINT STATEMENT Regarding Discovery Dispute by Defendants Robert Hales, Regents of the University of California, Charles Scott, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System re 76 Motion to Compel Production of

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 16 of 37

06/02/2016 06/02/2016 06/03/2016 06/07/2016 06/07/2016 06/07/2016 06/15/2016
06/16/2016 06/17/2016 06/17/2016

Documents and Responses. (Tyler, Robert) Modified on 6/3/2016 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 06/02/2016)
95 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Neal Christopher Lutterman on behalf of Robert Hales, Regents of the University of California, Charles Scott, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System. Attorney Lutterman, Neal Christopher added. (Lutterman, Neal) (Entered: 06/02/2016)
96 DECLARATION of Robery F. Tyler, Jr. in SUPPORT OF 76 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits C−M to Tyler Declaration)(Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 06/02/2016)
97 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/3/2016 ORDERING that the 6/8/2016 hearing on the Motions to Compel Discovery Responses 75 , 76 filed by both parties is VACATED; and the Chase defendants' motion to quash and for a protective order 33 is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal in proper form. (Reader, L) (Entered: 06/03/2016)
98 MINUTE ORDER: (Text Only). Please be advised, Magistrate Judge Allison Claire has ordered this case be set for a Discovery Management Conference. Therefore, the conference is scheduled for 6/15/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. All counsel are to appear in person. If any party files or renews a motion to compel prior to the conference, the Joint Statement should not be filed until after the conference. (Callen, V) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
99 MOTION for DISCOVERY to Compel Further Production & Responses by Defendants County of Sacramento, Jones, Lewis & Pattison by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing set for 6/29/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Rifkin, Lori) Modified on 6/8/2016 (Washington, S). (Entered: 06/07/2016)
100 MOTION for DISCOVERY to Compel Further Production & Responses by Defendants University of California Davis Health System, Sokolov & Hales by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing set for 6/29/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Rifkin, Lori) Modified on 6/8/2016 (Washington, S). (Entered: 06/07/2016)
101 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire: DISCOVERY MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE held on 6/15/2016. The court and the parties discuss current discovery matters and the problems the court has encountered with this case thus far. The court wants to know if there is anything lurking other than the disputes she is going to hear in two weeks that will help the parties stay on track. Plaintiff counsel states there are ongoing problems with the privilege log. Defense Counsel Robert Tyler states, he has already prepared the privilege log and would have filed it if he were not in court this morning and he assures the court he will sign and file it upon his return to the office. Mr. Tyler states they had an inadvertent "hipaa" matter that has come to light and puts his concerns on the record. Counsel feels he may need to file a motion concerning this dispute. The court states that is a legal matter and to bring the motion sooner rather than later. The parties state there is nothing further to discuss and are ready to argue the upcoming motions in two weeks. Plaintiffs Counsel Lori Rifkin present. Defendants Counsel Adam DeBow, Dayton Longyear, Robert Tyler and Neal Lutterman present. Court Reporter/CD Number: 1 of 1. (Callen, V) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
102 STIPULATION of DISMISSAL of Action as to Defendant Charles Scott, M.D. by James J. Mayfield. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hadsell, Barbara) Modified on 6/17/2016 (Reader, L). (Entered: 06/16/2016)
103 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 6/17/16 ORDERING that defendant Charles Scott, M.D. is hereby dismissed from Action No. 2:13−CV−02499−JAM−AC, James Joshua Mayfield, et al. v. Ivan Orozco, et al. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
104 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Filing of Fourth Amended Complaint by James J. Mayfield. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Prop Fourth Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B−Order Appointing Probate Conservators, # 3 Exhibit C−Letters of Conservatorship for Estate, # 4 Exhibit D−Letters of Conservatorship for Person, # 5

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 17 of 37

06/20/2016 06/20/2016 06/22/2016 06/22/2016 06/23/2016
06/27/2016 06/28/2016
06/29/2016 06/29/2016
06/29/2016 06/30/2016

Proposed Order Re Filing of Fourth Amended Complaint)(McLoon, Caitlan) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
105 ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 6/20/16: Plaintiffs' request to file a Fourth Amended Complaint is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court SHALL FILE Plaintiffs' [Proposed] Fourth Amended Complaint as a separate docket entry. (Kaminski, H) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
106 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants by James J. Mayfield.(Kaminski, H) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
107 JOINT STATEMENT Regarding Discovery Dispute by Plaintiffs Re: 100 Motion for Discovery. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Acrivi Coromelas & Exhibit 1−3, # 2 Declaration of Caitlan McLoon, # 3 Declaration of Robert Tyler, # 4 Proposed Order)(Coromelas, Acrivi) Modified on 6/23/2016 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 06/22/2016)
108 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Continuing Hearing to August 3, 2016 re 75 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses to Interrogatories by James J. Mayfield. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Continuing Hearing)(McLoon, Caitlan) (Entered: 06/22/2016)
109 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/22/16 ORDERING that based upon the concurrently filed Stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, the hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents and Responses to Interrogatories by Defendants County of Sacramento, Jones, Lewis, and Pattison is hereby CONTINUED from June 29, 2016, to August 3, 2016, with the Joint Statement accordingly due on July 27, 2016.(Dillon, M) (Entered: 06/23/2016)
110 MINUTE ORDER: (Text Only). The parties are directed to provide a copy of a document that exemplifies each of the points of disagreement addressed in their respective briefs regarding the pending Motion to Compel set for hearing June 29, 2016. The documents shall be sent via email to acorders@caed.uscourts.gov no later than 4:00 p.m on June 28, 2016. (Callen, V) (Entered: 06/27/2016)
111 MOTION for DISCOVERY To Compel Plaintiff's Conservator to Sign Authorization to Release Records from the Social Security Administration by Robert Hales, Regents of the University of California, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System. Attorney Watts, Bianca added. Motion Hearing set for 7/20/2016 at 10:00 AM in US Magistrate Judge 501 I Street before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Watts, Bianca) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
112 ANSWER with Jury Demand by Robert Hales, Regents of the University of California, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System.(Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 06/29/2016)
113 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire: MOTION HEARING held on 6/29/2016 re 100 Motion for Discovery filed by James J. Mayfield. The matter is taken under submission and the court will issue a written order by the end of the week. Plaintiffs Counsel Lori Rifkin present. Defendants Counsel Robert F. Tyler present. Court Reporter/CD Number: 1 of 1. (Callen, V) (Entered: 06/29/2016)
114 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Extension of Expert Discovery Deadlines re 41 Scheduling Order,, by Robert Hales, Regents of the University of California, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System. (Lutterman, Neal) (Entered: 06/29/2016)
115 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 6/29/16 ORDERING that Expert disclosures are now due on 9/22/2016. Supplemental expert and rebuttal expert disclosures are now due on 10/7/2016. The present discovery cutoff date of 10/14/2016 shall remain in place, except for purposes of depositions of experts only, which shall be continued to the date of 10/26/2016. All other discovery deadlines, and all law and motion and trial dates established previously by the court's pretrial Scheduling Order dated 4/20/2015 shall remain in effect.(Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 06/30/2016)

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 18 of 37

07/01/2016 07/01/2016 07/06/2016 07/13/2016 07/13/2016 07/14/2016 07/20/2016
07/20/2016
07/27/2016 07/28/2016 07/29/2016 08/04/2016 08/24/2016 08/25/2016 08/26/2016

116 ANSWER with Jury Demand by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison.(Rippy, Nicole) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
117 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/1/2016 GRANTING−IN−PART and DENYING−IN−PART 100 Motion for Discovery. (Donati, J) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
118 ANSWER with Jury Demand by Ivan Orozco.(Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
119 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER re Independent Medical Examination by Robert Hales, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System. (Watts, Bianca) Modified on 7/14/2016 (Michel, G.). (Entered: 07/13/2016)
120 JOINT STATEMENT re Discovery Disagreement by Defendants Robert Hales, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Neal C. Lutterman, # 2 Declaration of Acrivi Coromales) (Watts, Bianca) Modified on 7/14/2016 (Michel, G.). (Entered: 07/13/2016)
121 STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 7/14/2016 ORDERING that an independent medical examination of Plantiff James J. Mayfield be completed on 8/25/2016; ORDERING that reports regarding said examination be produced by 9/22/2016. (Michel, G.) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
122 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire: MOTION HEARING held on 7/20/2016 re 111 MOTION for DISCOVERY To Compel Plaintiff's Conservator to Sign Authorization to Release Records from the Social Security Administration filed by University of California Davis Health System, Gregory Sokolov, Regents of the University of California, Robert Hales. The matter is submitted and the court will issue a written order. Plaintiffs Counsel Acrivi Coromelas, via telephone present. Defendants Counsel Bianca Watts present. Court Reporter/CD Number: 1 of 1. (Callen, V) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
123 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 07/20/16 ORDERING that UC defendants' 111 Motion to Compel is GRANTED; the Conservator for James J. Mayfield shall promptly execute a Consent to Disclose the records held by the Social Security Administration regarding Plaintiff James Joshua Mayfield, authorizing disclosure directly to counsel for the UC Defendants; unless and until redacted, the documents are to be reviewed only by counsel of record for the moving defendants and for plaintiffs, and are not to be shared with any third parties; defendants shall REDACT all documents received from the SSA as directed; a Proposed Protective Order shall be filed in accordance with this Court's 117 Order. (Benson, A) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
124 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Amended Stipulated Protective Order by James J. Mayfield. (Coromelas, Acrivi) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
125 NOTICE of WITHDRAWAL of 99 Motion for Discovery by James J. Mayfield. (McLoon, Caitlan) Modified on 7/29/2016 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 07/28/2016)
126 PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/28/16. (Kaminski, H) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
127 NOTICE of CHANGE of ADDRESS by Lori Rifkin. (Rifkin, Lori) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
128 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for taking the depositions of inmates by Ivan Orozco. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 08/24/2016)
129 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form, # 2 Order re Filing Requirements, # 3 VDRP) (Donati, J) (Entered: 08/25/2016)
130 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 8/26/16 ORDERING that the parties may, through their counsel of record, depose the following inmates at the stated locations on or before the discovery deadline of 10/12/16: Nicholas Newsome, Salinas Valley Prison, 31625 U.S. 101, Soledad, CA 93960; Nathaniel Carter, Salinas Valley Prison, 31625 U.S. 101, Soledad, CA 93960; and Quentin Carthen, North Kern State Prison, 2737 W. Cecil Avenue, Delano, CA 93215. (Becknal, R) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 19 of 37

09/16/2016 09/21/2016 09/30/2016 10/05/2016
10/05/2016
10/05/2016 10/05/2016 10/05/2016 10/12/2016
10/24/2016
10/26/2016 10/26/2016

131 MOTION to COMPEL Depositions of Dr. Gregory Sokolov and Ms. Andrea Javist by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing SET for 10/12/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Rifkin, Lori) Modified on 9/19/2016 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 09/16/2016)
132 MOTION to COMPEL Discovery by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing set for 10/12/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) Modified on 10/17/2016 (Reader, L). (Entered: 09/21/2016)
133 JOINT MID−LITIGATION STATEMENT by Defendants County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison. (Rippy, Nicole) Modified on 10/3/2016 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 09/30/2016)
134 JOINT DISCOVERY STATEMENT DISAGREEMENT RE: Plaintiffs Motion to Compel further production of documents by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing set for 10/12/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Joshua Piovia−Scott, # 2 Declaration of Nicole Cahill, # 3 Proposed Order)(Piovia−Scott, Joshua) Modified on 10/6/2016 (Callen, V). (Entered: 10/05/2016)
135 JOINT DISCOVERY STATEMENT DISAGREEMENT RE: Plaintiffs' motion to compel depositions of Dr. Gregory Sokolov and Ms. Andrea Javist and to Compel compliance with the court's 7/1/2016 Order by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing set for 10/12/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lori Rifkin, # 2 Declaration of Acrivi Coromelas, # 3 Proposed Order)(Rifkin, Lori) Modified on 10/6/2016 (Callen, V). (Entered: 10/05/2016)
136 (AMENDED) NOTICE OF MOTION by James J. Mayfield re 135 Motion to Compel further productions of documents. (Rifkin, Lori) Modified on 10/6/2016 (Callen, V). (Entered: 10/05/2016)
137 DECLARATION of Neal C. Lutterman re 135 Motion to compel Depositions and compliance with Court's 7/1/2016 Order. (Watts, Bianca) Modified on 10/17/2016 (Reader, L). (Entered: 10/05/2016)
138 DECLARATION of Bianca S. Watts re 135 Motion to Compel Depositions and Compliance with Court's 7/1/2016 Order. (Watts, Bianca) Modified on 10/17/2016 (Reader, L). (Entered: 10/05/2016)
139 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire: MOTION HEARING held on 10/12/2016. The court granted the motion regarding the PREA 2016 REPORT and gave the County twenty−four (24) hours to produce the report. The remaining motions are taken under submission for issuance of a written order, but the parties are informed that the court intends to grant both motions.Plaintiffs Counsel Lori Rifkin and Joshua Piovia−Scott present. Defendants Counsel Bianca Watts and Nicole Cahill present. Court Reporter/CD Number: 1 of 1. (Callen, V) (Entered: 10/12/2016)
140 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/23/16 ORDERING that the Plaintiffs' motions to compel, ECF Nos. 131 and 132 , are GRANTED; Defendants shall produce all outstanding documents and supplemental responses to Interrogatories, as specified above, within seven days; Dr. Sokolv shall be produced for a deposition not to exceed four (4) hours on a day and ata time convenient to the parties no later than 10/31/16; and Ms. Javist shall be produced for a deposition not to exceed two (2) hours on a day and at a time convenient to the parties, no later than 10/31/16; and All discovery produced or conducted pursuant to this order will be deemed timely. (Becknal, R) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
141 MOTION to COMPEL DISCOVERY by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing set for 11/16/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Coromelas, Acrivi) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
142 MOTION to COMPEL PRODUCTION and MOTION to COMPEL DEPOSITION of Defendant Ivan Orozco by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing set for 11/16/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Coromelas, Acrivi) (Entered: 10/26/2016)

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 20 of 37

10/28/2016 11/04/2016 11/07/2016 11/09/2016 11/09/2016 11/09/2016
11/10/2016 11/15/2016 11/16/2016 11/16/2016
11/16/2016 11/16/2016
11/17/2016
11/17/2016

143 MINUTE ORDER: The parties are advised that the Courts scheduling order of April 20, 2015 is amended to reflect that the hearing date for dispositive motions has been changed to February 7, 2017 at 1:30 P.M. (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
144 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Summary Judgment Due Dates by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison. (Rippy, Nicole) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
145 STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 11/7/2016 ORDERING the County Defendants to file dispositive motions by 11/23/2016; ORDERING that all other dates remain the same. (Michel, G.) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
146 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for the Dismissal of the Thirteenth Cause of Action Only as to Defendant Ivan Orozco by James J. Mayfield. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Coromelas, Acrivi) (Entered: 11/09/2016)
147 WITHDRAWAL of 142 Motion to Compel by James J. Mayfield. (Coromelas, Acrivi) (Entered: 11/09/2016)
148 JOINT STATEMENT re Discovery Disagreement re: plaintiff's 141 Motion to Compel by James J. Mayfield. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Acrivi Coromelas and Exhibits, # 2 Declaration of Nicole Cahill and Exhibits, # 3 Declaration of Rick Heyer, # 4 Proposed Order)(Coromelas, Acrivi) Modified on 11/10/2016 (Benson, A). (Entered: 11/09/2016)
149 ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 11/09/2016 ORDERING that, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, Defendant Ivan Orozco is hereby DISMISSED only from the Thirteenth Cause of Action. (Butolph, J) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
150 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/15/16 ORDERING that Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel 141 is DENIED without prejudice and the matter is VACATED from calendar. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
151 REQUEST to Seal Records in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Robert Hales, Regents of the University of California, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order)(Watts, Bianca) Modified on 11/17/2016 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 11/16/2016)
152 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Robert Hales, Regents of the University of California, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System. Motion Hearing set for 2/7/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities − Filed Under Seal, # 2 Statement of Undispute Material Facts − Filed Under Seal, # 3 Declaration of Robert F. Tyler, # 4 Exhibit List − Exhibits A−Q Filed Under Seal)(Tyler, Robert) Modified on 11/17/2016 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 11/16/2016)
153 NOTICE of Request to Seal Document(s) pursuant to L.R. 141 by Ivan Orozco. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities, # 2 Proposed Order)(Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
154 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Ivan Orozco. Motion Hearing set for 2/7/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities, # 2 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, # 3 Index, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Declaration of Adam J. DeBow, # 6 Request for Judicial Notice, # 7 Notice of Lodging)(Whitefleet, John) Modified on 11/17/2016 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 11/16/2016)
155 ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 11/16/2016 GRANTING 151 Request to Seal Documents; SEALING the UC Defendants Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Separate Statement, and Exhibits A−Q, including all attachments thereto, in support of their 152 Motion for Summary Judgment until the conclusion of this litigation. (Michel, G.) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
156 SEALED EVENT. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3, # 3 Part 4, # 4 Part 5, # 5 Part 6, # 6 Part 7, # 7 Part 8) (Michel, G.) (Entered: 11/17/2016)

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 21 of 37

11/17/2016 11/17/2016 11/21/2016
11/21/2016 11/22/2016
11/22/2016
11/23/2016 11/23/2016
11/29/2016 11/29/2016 11/29/2016 12/07/2016 12/07/2016
12/14/2016 12/14/2016 12/19/2016

157 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by Robert Hales, Regents of the University of California, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System re 152 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT 154 of one CD from Defendant Ivan Orozco. [TEXT ONLY] (Reader, L) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
158 ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 11/18/2016 GRANTING Ivan Orozco's 153 Request to Seal Portions of Documents Filed in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
159 SEALED EVENT (Attachments: # 1 Sealed Event, # 2 Sealed Event) (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
160 MOTION for SANCTIONS and Reasonable Expenses by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing set for 12/21/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lori Rifkin, # 2 Declaration of Dan Stormer, # 3 Proposed Order)(Rifkin, Lori) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
161 MOTION for Reasonable Expenses by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing set for 12/21/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Joshua Piovia−Scott, # 2 Declaration of Dan Stormer, # 3 Proposed Order)(Rifkin, Lori) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
162 NOTICE of Request to Seal Document(s) pursuant to L.R. 141 by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities, # 2 Proposed Order)(Rippy, Nicole) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
163 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison. Motion Hearing set for 2/7/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities, # 2 Statement Undisputed material facts, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibits 1−20, # 6 Exhibits 21−40, # 7 Exhibit 41, # 8 Exhibit 42, # 9 Exhibit 43, # 10 Exhibits 44−49, # 11 Exhibits 50−65, # 12 Exhibits 66−88, # 13 Exhibits 89−98)(Rippy, Nicole) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
164 ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 11/28/2016 GRANTING County Defendants' 162 Notice of Request to Seal Documents. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
165 SEALED EVENT (Attachments: # 1 Sealed Event, # 2 Sealed Event, # 3 Sealed Event, # 4 Sealed Event, # 5 Sealed Event) (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
166 NOTICE of ERRATA by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison re 163 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Rippy, Nicole) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
167 OPPOSITION by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison to 161 MOTION for Reasonable Expenses. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit)(Rippy, Nicole) (Entered: 12/07/2016)
168 OPPOSITION by Robert Hales, Regents of the University of California, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System to 160 Motion for Sanctions. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Neal Lutterman, # 2 Declaration of Bianca Watts)(Watts, Bianca) (Entered: 12/07/2016)
169 REPLY by James J. Mayfield re 161 MOTION for Reasonable Expenses. (Coromelas, Acrivi) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
170 REPLY by James J. Mayfield re 160 Motion for Sanctions. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of Lori Rifkin)(Coromelas, Acrivi) Modified on 12/15/2016 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 12/14/2016)
171 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/19/16 ORDERING that the 12/21/16 hearing on 160 Motion for Reasonable Expenses and Sanctions and 161 Motion for Reasonable Expenses is VACATED; the parties shall file simultaneous Supplemental Briefs, addressing the appropriate rate to be applied in this case, within 21 days; the parties may each file a Reply Memorandum 7 days thereafter. (Benson, A) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 22 of 37

12/23/2016 12/30/2016 01/06/2017 01/06/2017 01/09/2017
01/17/2017 01/18/2017
01/20/2017 01/20/2017 01/20/2017 01/23/2017
01/24/2017 01/24/2017 01/24/2017 01/24/2017

172 MOTION to BIFURCATE TRIAL by defendants. Motion Hearing set for 1/24/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration)(Watts, Bianca) (Entered: 12/23/2016)
173 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION re 160 , 161 Motions for Sanctions/Motion for Reasonable Expenses by James J. Mayfield. (Rifkin, Lori) (Entered: 12/30/2016)
174 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Continuance of hearing date re 172 Motion to Bifurcate Trial by James J. Mayfield. (McLoon, Caitlan) (Entered: 01/06/2017)
175 AMENDED 174 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Continuance of hearing date re 172 Motion to Bifurcate Trial by James J. Mayfield. (McLoon, Caitlan) (Entered: 01/06/2017)
176 STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 1/6/2017 CONTINUING the Motion Hearing on 172 Motion to Bifurcate Trial to 2/21/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez; ORDERING that the plaintiff's opposition and the defendants' reply are submitted in accordance with Federal and Local Rules. (Michel, G.) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
177 EX PARTE APPLICATION by James J. Mayfield to Unseal 163 Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Shorten Time to Hear Motion to Unseal. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Caitlan McLoon and Exhibits, # 2 Proposed Order)(McLoon, Caitlan) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
178 MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to unseal all sealed documents filed in conjunction with Defendants respective motions for summary judgment. ECF No. 177. Defendants shall file either a statement of non−opposition or an opposition, not to exceed five pages, to Plaintiffs ex parte application by noon on Friday, January 20, 2017. No reply brief is permitted. IT IS SO ORDERED. (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 01/18/2017)
179 STATEMENT of Non−Opposition to by Defendant Ivan Orozco 177 Ex Parte Application. (Whitefleet, John) Modified on 1/23/2017 (Washington, S). (Entered: 01/20/2017)
180 OPPOSITION by Defendants Robert Hales, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System to 177 Ex Parte Application,. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Neal C. Lutterman, # 2 Exhibit A to the Declaration)(Watts, Bianca) Modified on 1/23/2017 (Washington, S). (Entered: 01/20/2017)
181 OPPOSITION by Defendants County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison to 177 Ex Parte Application,. (Rippy, Nicole) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
182 MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to unseal all sealed documents filed in conjunction with Defendants respective motions for summary judgment. ECF No. 177. Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause to unseal the documents. Plaintiffs ex parte application to unseal is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
183 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION by Robert Hales, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System to 163 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
184 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION by Robert Hales, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System to 154 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
185 NOTICE OF LODGING DOCUMENT IN PAPER by All Plaintiffs : CD−R Containing Video Exhibits 86 & 500. (Rifkin, Lori) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
186 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff James J. Mayfield to 163 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Acrivi Coromelas, # 2 Proposed Order)(Coromelas, Acrivi) (Entered: 01/24/2017)

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 23 of 37

01/24/2017 01/25/2017
01/25/2017 01/25/2017 01/25/2017 01/25/2017 01/25/2017
01/25/2017
01/26/2017 01/31/2017 01/31/2017 01/31/2017 01/31/2017 01/31/2017 01/31/2017

187 NOTICE of Request to Seal Document(s) pursuant to L.R. 141 by All Plaintiffs. (Rifkin, Lori) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
188 MINUTE ORDER: The hearing on Defendants motions for summary judgment currently scheduled for February 7, 2017 are hereby reset for Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 6 due to the massive amount of documents that the Court must review to give full and proper consideration to these motions. The pretrial conference and trial dates remain as currently scheduled. Defendants must file their reply briefs by Tuesday, January 31, 2017. IT IS SO ORDERED. (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
189 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION by Robert Hales, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System to 163 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Lutterman, Neal) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
190 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION by Robert Hales, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System to 154 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Lutterman, Neal) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
191 ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 1/25/2017 GRANTING 187 Plaintiff's Request to Seal Documents. (Donati, J) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
192 SEALED EVENT (Attachments: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3, # 3 Part 4, # 4 Part 5, # 5 Part 6, # 6 Part 7, # 7 Part 8, # 8 Part 9, # 9 Part 10, # 10 Part 11, # 11 Part 12, # 12 Part 13, # 13 Part 14, # 14 Part 15, # 15 Part 16, # 16 Part 17, # 17 Part 18, # 18 Part 19, # 19 Part 20) (Donati, J) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
193 SEALED EVENT (Attachments: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3, # 3 Part 4, # 4 Part 5, # 5 Part 6, # 6 Part 7, # 7 Part 8, # 8 Part 9, # 9 Part 10, # 10 Part 11, # 11 Part 12, # 12 Part 13, # 13 Part 14, # 14 Part 15, # 15 Part 16, # 16 Part 17, # 17 Part 18, # 18 Part 19, # 19 Part 20, # 20 Part 21, # 21 Part 22, # 22 Part 23, # 23 Part 24, # 24 Part 25) [CONTINUED from 192 Sealed Event] (Donati, J) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
194 SEALED EVENT (Attachments: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3, # 3 Part 4, # 4 Part 5, # 5 Part 6, # 6 Part 7, # 7 Part 8, # 8 Part 9, # 9 Part 10, # 10 Part 11, # 11 Part 12, # 12 Part 13, # 13 Part 14, # 14 Part 15, # 15 Part 16, # 16 Part 17, # 17 Part 18, # 18 Part 19, # 19 Part 20, # 20 Part 21, # 21 Part 22, # 22 Part 23, # 23 Part 24, # 24 Part 25, # 25 Part 26, # 26 Part 27, # 27 Part 28, # 28 Part 29, # 29 Part 30) [CONTINUED from 193 Sealed Event] (Donati, J) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
195 NOTICE of Errata re 163 Motion for Summary Judgment and NOTICE of Compliance With Filing Order 129 −2 by Defendants County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison. (Rippy, Nicole) Modified on 1/27/2017 (Washington, S). (Entered: 01/26/2017)
196 NOTICE of Request to Seal Document(s) pursuant to L.R. 141 by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities, # 2 Proposed Order)(Rippy, Nicole) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
197 REPLY by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison re 163 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Revised Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit)(Rippy, Nicole) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
198 NOTICE of Request to Seal Document(s) pursuant to L.R. 141 by Robert Hales, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System. (Attachments: # 1 Request to Seal Records, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Request to Seal Records)(Lutterman, Neal) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
199 NOTICE of Request to Seal Document(s) pursuant to L.R. 141 by Ivan Orozco. (Attachments: # 1 Request to Seal, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Request to Seal)(Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
200 REPLY by Robert Hales, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System re 152 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Lutterman, Neal) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
201 OPPOSITION by Robert Hales, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System to 152 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Neal C. Lutterman in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Dr.

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 24 of 37

01/31/2017
02/01/2017 02/03/2017 02/03/2017 02/03/2017 02/03/2017 02/03/2017 02/03/2017 02/07/2017 02/07/2017 02/07/2017 02/14/2017 02/15/2017
02/23/2017

Penn's Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A Under Seal in support of Opposition to Motion to Strike Penn's Declaration)(Lutterman, Neal) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
202 OBJECTIONS by Defendants Robert Hales, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System to 193 Sealed Event, 192 Sealed Event, 194 Sealed Event. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Neal C. Lutterman in Support of Objections to Evidence in Support of Plaintiffs' Objections to Regents' Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Exhibit A Filed Under Seal, # 3 Exhibit B Filed Under Seal)(Lutterman, Neal) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
203 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by Robert Hales, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System re 202 Objections, 200 Reply, 201 Opposition to Motion. (Lutterman, Neal) (Entered: 02/01/2017)
204 ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 2/2/2017 GRANTING 196 Notice of Request to Seal Documents filed in support of defendants' reply to plaintiffs' opposition to motion for summary judgment. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
205 SEALED EVENT (Attachments: # 1 Sealed Event, # 2 Sealed Event, # 3 Sealed Event, # 4 Sealed Event, # 5 Sealed Event) (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
206 ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 2/2/2017 GRANTING 199 Notice of Request to Seal Documents filed in support of defendant's reply to plaintiffs' opposition to motion for summary judgment. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
207 SEALED EVENT (Attachments: # 1 Sealed Event, # 2 Sealed Event, # 3 Sealed Event, # 4 Sealed Event, # 5 Sealed Event, # 6 Sealed Event, # 7 Sealed Event, # 8 Sealed Event) (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
208 ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 2/2/2017 GRANTING 198 Notice of Request to Seal Documents filed in support of defendants' reply to opposition to motion for summary judgment. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
209 SEALED EVENT (Attachments: # 1 Sealed Event, # 2 Sealed Event, # 3 Sealed Event, # 4 Sealed Event, # 5 Sealed Event, # 6 Sealed Event, # 7 Sealed Event, # 8 Sealed Event, # 9 Sealed Event, # 10 Sealed Event) (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
210 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison to 172 Motion to Bifurcate Trial. (Rippy, Nicole) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
211 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION by Ivan Orozco to 172 Motion to Bifurcate Trial. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
212 OPPOSITION by James J. Mayfield to 172 Motion to Bifurcate Trial. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Joshua Piovia−Scott)(Piovia−Scott, Joshua) Modified on 2/8/2017 (Washington, S). (Entered: 02/07/2017)
213 REPLY IN SUPPORT by Robert Hales, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System, of motion to bifurcate trial, re 212 Opposition to Motion. (Watts, Bianca) Modified on 2/17/2017 (Reader, L). (Entered: 02/14/2017)
214 MINUTE ORDER: The hearing on the motion(s) now calendared for February 21, 2017 is/are ordered submitted without appearance and without argument pursuant to Local Rule 230 (g). If the Court subsequently concludes that oral argument is necessary, a hearing will be set and the parties notified accordingly. (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
215 MINUTE ORDER: As a reminder to counsel, the Courts Status (pre−trial scheduling) order of April 20, 2015 requires that the parties e−file a joint pretrial statement no later than 7 days prior to the conference. The pretrial conference is set for March 24, 2017 which would require the joint pretrial statement to be e−filed no later than March 17, 2017.You are also reminded that the entire statement, including any attachments or exhibits is to be e−mailed in word format to the Court's Judicial Assistant, Ms. Jane Klingelhoets, at the following e−mail address: jklingelhoets@caed.uscourts.gov. (Vine, H) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 25 of 37

02/24/2017 03/03/2017 03/03/2017 03/03/2017 03/06/2017 03/07/2017 03/09/2017
03/09/2017 03/09/2017 03/09/2017 03/10/2017 03/10/2017 03/10/2017 03/13/2017

216 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Acrivi Coromelas TERMINATED by James J. Mayfield. (Stormer, Daniel) (Entered: 02/24/2017)
217 ASSOCIATION of ATTORNEY: Added attorney Gregory Gordon Lynch for Robert Hales, Regents of the University of California, Charles Scott, Gregory Sokolov, and the University of California Davis Health System. (Lutterman, Neal) Modified on 3/6/2017 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 03/03/2017)
218 ASSOCIATION of ATTORNEY: Added attorney Kim M. Wells for Regents of the University of California, Charles Scott, Gregory Sokolov, and the University of California Davis Health System. (Lutterman, Neal) Modified on 3/6/2017 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 03/03/2017)
219 ASSOCIATION of ATTORNEY: Added attorney John Joseph Weber for Robert Hales,John Joseph Weber for Regents of the University of California,John Joseph Weber for Charles Scott,John Joseph Weber for Gregory Sokolov,John Joseph Weber for University of California Davis Health System. (Lutterman, Neal) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
220 MINUTE ORDER: re 172 Motion to Bifurcate − The parties are advised that they should be prepared to discuss defendant's motion to bifurcate at the hearing now scheduled for March 7, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
221 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before District Judge John A. Mendez: MOTION HEARING [152; 154; 163] held on 3/7/2017. Further hearing reset to 3/8/2017 1:30 p.m. Plaintiffs Counsel J. Piovia−Scott; D. Stormer; L. Rifkin present. Defendants Counsel A. Wisniewski; N. Lutterman; V. Longyear; N. Rippy present. Court Reporter:Diane Shepard (Vine, H) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
222 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before District Judge John A. Mendez: MOTION HEARING held on 3/8/2017 re: defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. Counsel for parties present. After hearing arguments and for reasons stated on the record, the Court GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and SUBMITTED causes of actions as noted in the defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 152 , 154 , and 163 ). Counsel to file further briefing limited to ten (10) pages by no later than 3/14/2017. Defense counsel to prepare proposed order as to the motions. Plaintiffs Counsel L. Rifkin and J. Piova−Scott present. Defendants Counsel V. Longyear and N. Rippy present. Court Reporter: Kimberly Bennett. (Shaddox−Waldrop, A) Modified on 5/5/2017 (Rivas, A). (Entered: 03/09/2017)
223 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by County of Sacramento for proceedings held on 3/7/17, 3/8/17 before Judge Mendez. Court Reporter Diane Shepard. (Rippy, Nicole) (Entered: 03/09/2017)
224 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Ivan Orozco for proceedings held on 3/7/17; 3/8/17 before Judge Mendez. Court Reporter Diane Shepard. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 03/09/2017)
225 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Robert Hales, Regents of the University of California, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System for proceedings held on 3/7/2017 before Judge Mendez. Court Reporter Diane Shepard. (Lutterman, Neal) (Entered: 03/09/2017)
226 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by James J. Mayfield for proceedings held on March 7 and 8, 2017 before Judge John A. Mendez. MULTIPLE REPORTERS REQUESTED (Stormer, Daniel) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
227 AMENDED TRANSCRIPT REQUEST re 226 by James J. Mayfield for proceedings held on March 7 and 8, 2017 before Judge John A. Mendez. MULTIPLE REPORTERS REQUESTED (Stormer, Daniel) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
228 AMENDED TRANSCRIPT REQUEST re 223 by County of Sacramento for proceedings held on 3/7/17, 3/8/17 before Judge Mendez. MULTIPLE REPORTERS REQUESTED (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
229 AMENDED TRANSCRIPT REQUEST re 224 by Ivan Orozco for proceedings held on 3/7/17; 3/8/17 before Judge Mendez. MULTIPLE REPORTERS REQUESTED

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 26 of 37

03/13/2017 03/14/2017 03/14/2017 03/14/2017 03/15/2017
03/17/2017 03/17/2017
03/19/2017
03/22/2017 03/24/2017

(Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
230 MINUTE ORDER: Due to a calendar conflict, the Court orders that the Pretrial Conference be reset for 3/31/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. The parties joint pretrial statement shall be filed on or before 3/24/2017. (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
231 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING per Court Order 222 by JPS. (Lutterman, Neal) Modified on 3/14/2017 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 03/14/2017)
232 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re County Liability for Negligence by Plaintiffs. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) Modified on 3/15/2017 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 03/14/2017)
233 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re the Court's Ability to Consider Information Presented in Non−Admissible Form by Plaintiffs. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) Modified on 3/15/2017 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 03/14/2017)
234 MINUTE ORDER: The Court exercises its discretion to consider the deposition testimony of Plaintiffs expert, Dr. Patterson. Dr. Pattersons deposition testimony creates triable issues of fact as to Plaintiffs 7th claim for medical malpractice, 12th claim for negligence, and 13th claim for negligent supervision. The Court denies Defendants motion for summary judgment on those claims. The Court denies the JPS Defendants request to submit further briefing on this issue. IT IS SO ORDERED. (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 03/15/2017)
235 MINUTE ORDER: Due to a change in the Courts availability, the pretrial conference in this matter is ordered advanced to Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. The joint pretrial statement remains due on March 24, 2017. (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
236 MINUTE ORDER: The Court has considered Plaintiffs supplemental briefing on whether the County is immune from liability for Plaintiffs negligence (12th cause of action) and negligent supervision, training, hiring, and retention (13th cause of action) claims. The Court finds, in agreement with several other district courts that have addressed this issue, that public agencies may be held liable for negligent hiring, supervision, training, or retention under Cal. Govt Code § 845.6 to the extent [a] [p]laintiffs claims are based on the [public agencys] alleged negligence in supervising and training their employees regarding the summoning of medical care. Pajas v. Cnty of Monterey, 2016 WL 3648686, at *14 (N.D. Cal Jul. 8, 2016). Additionally, Plaintiff may bring a claim for negligence against the County to the extent the negligence claim is based upon a violation of Section 845.6 for failure to summon medical care. Id. at *17. The Court therefore DENIES the Countys motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs 12th and 13th claims. IT IS SO ORDERED. (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
237 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings, Motion Hearing, held on March 7, 2017, before District Judge John A. Mendez, filed by Court Reporter Diane Shepard, Phone number 916−554−7460 E−mail diane.shepard@gmail.com. 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 4/10/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/20/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/19/2017. (Shepard, D) (Entered: 03/19/2017)
238 MINUTE ORDER: The parties are hereby notified that the pretrial conference is ordered rescheduled to Friday, March 31, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. The parties joint pretrial statement shall be filed on or before March 24, 2017. (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
239 PRETRIAL STATEMENT by Plaintiff James J. Mayfield. (Attachments: # 1 Addendum A − Plaintiff's Witness List, # 2 Addendum B − JPS Witness List, # 3 Addendum C − County Witness List, # 4 Addendum D − Orozco Witness List, # 5 Addendum E − Plaintiff's Exhibit List, # 6 Addendum F − JPS Exhibit List, # 7 Addendum G − County Exhibit List, # 8 Addendum H − Orozco Exhibit List, # 9 Addendum I − Plaintiff's Discovery Docs List, # 10 Addendum J − JPS Discovery Docs List, # 11 Addendum K − County Discovery Docs List, # 12 Addendum L −

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 27 of 37

03/28/2017 03/28/2017 03/28/2017 03/28/2017 03/29/2017
03/29/2017
03/29/2017
03/30/2017 03/30/2017 03/30/2017 03/31/2017 03/31/2017 03/31/2017

Orozco Discovery Docs List)(Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
240 APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum to Transport Quentin Carthen by Ivan Orozco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 03/28/2017)
241 APPLICATION for Order and Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum to Transport Nathaniel Carter & Nicholas Newsome by James J. Mayfield. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order & Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum to Transport Nicholas Newsome, # 2 Proposed Order & Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum to Transport Nathaniel Carter)(Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 03/28/2017)
242 [DISREGARD − Incorrect image attached. See Doc. 243 ] NOTICE of SETTLEMENT by Robert Hales, Regents of the University of California, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System. (Lutterman, Neal) Modified on 3/29/2017 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 03/28/2017)
243 NOTICE of SETTLEMENT [CONDITIONAL] by Robert Hales, Regents of the University of California, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System. (Lutterman, Neal) (Entered: 03/28/2017)
245 ORDER and WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM ISSUED signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/29/2017 ORDERING the Custodian to produce Nicholas Newsome, AS2262, at 9:00 AM on 5/1/2017 in Courtroom 6 before District Judge John A. Mendez. Custodian is ordered to notify the Court of any changes in custody and to provide new custodian with a copy of this writ. Clerk shall serve a copy of this order and writ on the Custodian and Out−to−Court Desk. (cc: OTCD) (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 03/30/2017)
246 ORDER and WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM ISSUED signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/29/2017 ORDERING the Custodian to produce Nathaniel Carter, AN8931, at 9:00 AM on 5/1/2017 in Courtroom 6 before District Judge John A. Mendez. Custodian is ordered to notify the Court of any changes in custody and to provide new custodian with a copy of this writ. Clerk shall serve a copy of this order and writ on the Custodian and Out−to−Court Desk. (cc: OTCD)(Zignago, K.) (Entered: 03/30/2017)
247 ORDER and WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM ISSUED signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/29/2017 ORDERING the Custodian to produce Quentin Carthen, AX1182, at 9:00 AM on 5/1/2017 in Courtroom 6 before District Judge John A. Mendez. Custodian is ordered to notify the Court of any changes in custody and to provide new custodian with a copy of this writ. Clerk shall serve a copy of this order and writ on the Custodian and Out−to−Court Desk. (cc: OTCD)(Zignago, K.) (Entered: 03/30/2017)
244 PROPOSED ORDER re Regents' 152 Motion for Summary Judgment by Robert Hales, Regents of the University of California, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System. (Lutterman, Neal) Modified on 4/4/2017 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 03/30/2017)
250 PROPOSED ORDER re 154 Motion for Summary Judgment by Ivan Orozco. (Whitefleet, John) Modified on 4/4/2017 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 03/30/2017)
251 NOTICE of Errata by Ivan Orozco re 250 Proposed Order. (Attachments: # 1 Notice submission of proposed order)(Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 03/30/2017)
252 PROPOSED ORDER re 163 Motion for Summary Judgment by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
253 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before District Judge John A. Mendez: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 3/31/2017. Court to prepare pretrial order. Jury trial confirmed for 5/1/17 @ 9:00 a.m. Plaintiffs Counsel J. Piovia−Scott; D. Stormer present. Defendants Counsel J. Whitefleet; V. Longyear; N. Cahill present. Court Reporter: K. Bennett. (Vine, H) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
254 ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/31/2017 GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART defendant Orozco's 154 Motion for Summary

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 28 of 37

03/31/2017 03/31/2017 03/31/2017 03/31/2017
04/04/2017 04/07/2017 04/07/2017 04/10/2017 04/10/2017 04/11/2017
04/11/2017 04/12/2017 04/14/2017 04/14/2017 04/14/2017 04/14/2017

Judgment. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
255 ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/30/2017 GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 152 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
256 ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/31/2017 GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART County of Sacramento's 163 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
257 NOTICE re Pretrial Disclosures by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison. (Rippy, Nicole) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
258 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/31/2017 CONFIRMING the Jury Trial SET for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez; GRANTING each party seven (7) days to object or respond to this Pretrial Order. (Michel, G.) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
259 DESIGNATION OF COUNSEL FOR SERVICE: Attorneys Charles M. Gnekow, John R. Whitefleet ADDED for Ivan Orozco; Attorney Adam James DeBow TERMINATED. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 04/04/2017)
260 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff James J. Mayfield to 258 Order,. (Rifkin, Lori) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
261 AMENDED EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Exhibit List, # 2 Amended Witness List)(Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
262 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison for proceedings held on 3/31/17 before Judge Mendez. Court Reporter Kimberly Bennett. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
263 ASSOCIATION of ATTORNEY: Added attorney Richard Stone Linkert,Jack A. Klauschie, Jr,Brian D. Johnson for County of Sacramento. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
264 AMENDED 258 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 04/10/17 ORDERING that the in limine motions shall be filed by 04/14/17 with oppositions due 04/25/17; no replies may be filed. Defendants' request to bifurcate the trial is DENIED ; Jury Trial is CONFIRMED for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez. (Benson, A) (Entered: 04/11/2017)
265 CORRECTEDS EXHIBIT LIST by James J. Mayfield. (Attachments: # 1 Addendum E − Plaintiff's Corrected Exhbiit List, # 2 Supplement 1 − Plaintiff's Annotated Exhibit List)(Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/11/2017)
266 AMENDED 240 APPLICATION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM to Transport Quentin Carthen by Ivan Orozco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
267 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 1: to Exclude any Reference, Testimony or Questions to or by Witnesses Listed by Plaintiff from Commentating on the Video of the Incident on November 22, 2012 by Ivan Orozco. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
268 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 3: to Exclude any Reference, Testimony, or Questions to Defendant Orozco's Arrest Control Techniques Quiz by Ivan Orozco. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
269 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 7: to Exclude any Reference, Testimony, or Questions Regarding Statements by Deputy Pietrek to Inmate Mayfield Over the Intercom by Ivan Orozco. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
270 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 8: to Exclude any Reference, Testimony, or Questions Regarding the Charges or Prosecution of Charges Against Plaintiff Arising from the Incident on November 22, 2012 by Ivan Orozco. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 04/14/2017)

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 29 of 37

04/14/2017 04/14/2017 04/14/2017 04/14/2017
04/14/2017 04/14/2017 04/14/2017 04/14/2017 04/14/2017 04/14/2017 04/14/2017 04/14/2017 04/14/2017

271 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 9: to Limit Slow−Motion Playback of Video Depicting Altercation Between Plaintiff and Defendant by Ivan Orozco. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
272 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 10: to Exclude and/or Limit the Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Jeffrey A. Schwartz by Ivan Orozco. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
273 NOTICE of Request and Request to Seal Document(s) pursuant to L.R. 141: Motions in Limine Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 by Ivan Orozco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Whitefleet, John) Modified on 4/14/2017 (Benson, A). (Entered: 04/14/2017)
274 ORDER and WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM ISSUED signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 04/13/17 ORDERING the Custodian to produce Quentin Carthen, AX1182, at 9:00 AM on 5/1/2017 in Courtroom 6 before District Judge John A. Mendez. Custodian is ordered to notify the Court of any changes in custody and to provide new custodian with a copy of this writ. Clerk shall serve a copy of this order and writ on the Custodian and Out−to−Court Desk. (cc: OTCD). (Benson, A) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
275 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 3 by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison. Motion Hearing SET for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Declaration)(Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
276 REQUEST to Seal Motions in Limine and Supporting Documents by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities, # 2 Proposed Order)(Rippy, Nicole) Modified on 4/18/2017 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/14/2017)
277 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 1 to Exclude Testimony of Defendants' Expert Dr. Thomas Hedge by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing SET for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hadsell, Barbara) Modified on 4/18/2017 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/14/2017)
278 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 2 to Exclude Testimony of Defendants' Expert Stacey Helvin by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing SET for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hadsell, Barbara) Modified on 4/18/2017 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/14/2017)
279 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 3 to Exclude Criminal and Disciplinary History of Witnesses Carter & Newsome by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing SET for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hadsell, Barbara) Modified on 4/18/2017 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/14/2017)
280 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 4 to Exclude Reference to Settlement Communications by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing SET for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hadsell, Barbara) Modified on 4/18/2017 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/14/2017)
281 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 5 to Exclude Testimony by Defendants' Expert Gary Vilke re Plaintiff's Suicide Attempt by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing SET for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hadsell, Barbara) Modified on 4/18/2017 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/14/2017)
282 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 6 to Exclude Evidence or Argument that Plaintiff was Competent to Refuse Medication by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing SET for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hadsell, Barbara) Modified on 4/18/2017 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/14/2017)
283 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 7 to Exclude Evidence or Reference to Plaintiff's Prior Conduct by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing SET for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 30 of 37

04/14/2017 04/14/2017 04/14/2017 04/14/2017 04/14/2017 04/14/2017 04/14/2017
04/17/2017
04/17/2017 04/17/2017 04/17/2017 04/17/2017

Proposed Order)(Hadsell, Barbara) Modified on 4/18/2017 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/14/2017)
284 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 8 to Exclude Argument and Evidence that Plaintiff Did Not Attempt to Commit Suicide by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing SET for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hadsell, Barbara) Modified on 4/18/2017 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/14/2017)
285 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 9 to Exclude Plaintiff's Alleged Prior Drug Use by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing SET for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hadsell, Barbara) Modified on 4/18/2017 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/14/2017)
286 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 10 to Exclude County Defendants' Late−Disclosed Witness by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing SET for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hadsell, Barbara) Modified on 4/18/2017 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/14/2017)
287 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 11 to Exclude Testimony that County Defendants Considered Plaintiff's Mental Health by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing SET for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hadsell, Barbara) Modified on 4/18/2017 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/14/2017)
288 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 12 to Exclude Private, Irrelevant, and Prejudicial Evidence re Mayfield family by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing SET for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hadsell, Barbara) Modified on 4/18/2017 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/14/2017)
289 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 13 to Exclude and/or Limit the Testimony of Defendant Orozco's Expert Jeffrey Hislop by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing set for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hadsell, Barbara) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
290 DECLARATION of Barbara Enloe Hadsell in SUPPORT OF 280 Motion in Limine No. 4, 279 Motion in Limine No. 3, 288 Motion in Limine No. 12, 285 Motion in Limine No. 9, 281 Motion in Limine No. 5, 286 Motion in Limine No. 10, 287 Motion in Limine No. 11, 284 Motion in Limine No. 8, 277 Motion in Limine No. 1, 278 Motion in Limine No. 2, 282 Motion in Limine No. 6, 283 Motion in Limine No. 7, 289 Motion in Limine No. 13. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−6, # 2 Exhibit 7−16, # 3 Exhibit 17−28, # 4 Exhibit 29−47)(Hadsell, Barbara) Modified on 4/18/2017 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/14/2017)
291 MINUTE ORDER: The Court has denied Defendant Ivan Orozcos request to seal motions in limine nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 (Doc #273). The Court hereby notifies the parties that requests to seal trial documents or testimony will be routinely denied and protective orders that may have been applicable during the pretrial or discovery phases of this litigation will no longer be enforced absent a specific compelling reason to enforce such orders. The Court believes that trials should be open and accessible to the public and that orders sealing information used by any party as part of the trial process should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, e.g., for the protection of a minor. Accordingly, no further requests to seal entire documents will be granted in this case absent a showing of a specific legal justification for such a request.IT IS SO ORDERED. (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 04/17/2017)
292 AMENDED TRANSCRIPT REQUEST re 262 by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison for proceedings held on 3/31/17 before Judge Mendez. Court Reporter Kimberly Bennett. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/17/2017)
293 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 2 by Ivan Orozco. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 04/17/2017)
294 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 4 by Ivan Orozco. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 04/17/2017)
295 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 5 by Ivan Orozco. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 31 of 37

04/17/2017 04/18/2017
04/18/2017 04/18/2017 04/18/2017 04/18/2017 04/18/2017
04/19/2017 04/21/2017 04/21/2017 04/21/2017 04/21/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017

296 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 6 by Ivan Orozco. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 04/17/2017)
297 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 3/8/17, before District Judge John A. Mendez, filed by Court Reporter Kimberly Bennett, Phone number 916−442−8420 E−mail reporter.bennett@gmail.com. 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 5/11/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/19/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/17/2017. (Bennett, K) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
298 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 1 by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison. Motion Hearing set for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
299 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 2 by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison. Motion Hearing set for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
300 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 4 by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison. Motion Hearing set for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
301 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 5 by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison. Motion Hearing set for 5/1/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
302 EXHIBITS by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit to Declaration of Cahill re MIL's, # 2 Exhibit to Declaration of Cahill re MIL's)(Longyear, Dayton) Modified on 4/18/2017 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/18/2017)
303 NOTICE OF LODGING DOCUMENT IN PAPER by James J. Mayfield:. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/19/2017)
304 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff James J. Mayfield to defendant Ivan Orozco's Trial Exhibits. (Hadsell, Barbara) Modified on 4/24/2017 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 04/21/2017)
305 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff James J. Mayfield to 261 County of Sacramento Trial Exhibits. (Hadsell, Barbara) Modified on 4/24/2017 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 04/21/2017)
306 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT of 303 Deposition Transcripts for Trial from James J. Mayfield; routed to JAM Chambers. (Michel, G.) (Entered: 04/21/2017)
307 OBJECTIONS by Defendant Ivan Orozco to Plaintiff's Proposed Trial Exhibits. (Whitefleet, John) Modified on 4/24/2017 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 04/21/2017)
308 TRIAL BRIEF by Ivan Orozco.(Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
309 PROPOSED VOIR DIRE by Ivan Orozco.(Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
310 JOINT PROPOSED STATEMENT of Case by Defendant Ivan Orozco. (Whitefleet, John) Modified on 4/26/2017 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 04/24/2017)
311 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiff's trial exhibits by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison.(Longyear, Dayton) Modified on 4/26/2017 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 04/24/2017)
312 PROPOSED VOIR DIRE by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison.(Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
313 NOTICE OF LODGING DOCUMENT IN PAPER by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison: Notice of Lodging of Deposition Transcripts for Trial. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
314 TRIAL BRIEF by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibits 1−5, # 3 Exhibits 6−10)(Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/24/2017)

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 32 of 37

04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017
04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/25/2017
04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017
04/25/2017
04/25/2017
04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017

315 PROPOSED VERDICT submitted by Defendants County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison.(Rippy, Nicole) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
316 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS by James J. Mayfield.(Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
317 PROPOSED VERDICT submitted by Plaintiff James J. Mayfield.(Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
318 STATEMENT of the Case [Proposed] by Plaintiff James J. Mayfield. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
319 PROPOSED VOIR DIRE by James J. Mayfield.(Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
320 TRIAL BRIEF by James J. Mayfield. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Joshua Piovia−Scott and Exhibits in Support (Part 1 of 2), # 2 Declaration of Joshua Piovia−Scott and Exhibits in Support (Part 2 of 2))(Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
321 STATEMENT of Designated Portions of Deposition Transcripts by Plaintiff James J. Mayfield. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
322 STATEMENT of Designated Portions of Answers to Interrogatories by Plaintiff James J. Mayfield. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
323 [DISREGARD − SEE 326 MOTION] MOTION re 243 Notice of Settlement by Robert Hales, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System. Motion Hearing set for 5/16/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities)(Watts, Bianca) Modified on 4/25/2017 (Benson, A). (Entered: 04/25/2017)
324 PROPOSED VERDICT submitted by Defendant Ivan Orozco.(Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
325 CLERK'S NOTICE of DOCKET CORRECTION re 323 Motion: DISREGARD; Counsel to Refile. (Benson, A) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
326 MOTION for Determination of Good Faith Settlement re 243 Notice of Settlement by Robert Hales, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System. Motion Hearing set for 5/23/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration)(Watts, Bianca) Modified on 4/28/2017 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 04/25/2017)
327 MINUTE ORDER: The defendants motion for determination of Good Faith Settlement 326 noticed for hearing on May 23, 2017 will not be calendared for hearing as the Court is not available on this date. The moving party can obtain a new hearing date to re−notice the motion by contacting Harry Vine. Mr. Vine can be reached at 916−930−4091 or via email at: hvine@caed.uscourts.gov (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
328 AMENDED MOTION for Determination of Good Faith Settlement re 243 Notice of Settlement by Robert Hales, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System. Motion Hearing set for 6/20/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of Neal C. Lutterman)(Watts, Bianca) Modified on 4/28/2017 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 04/25/2017)
329 OPPOSITION by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones to 277 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 1. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
330 OPPOSITION by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones to 278 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 2. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
331 OPPOSITION by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones to 279 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 3. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
332 OPPOSITION by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones to 280 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 4. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/25/2017)

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 33 of 37

04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017
04/25/2017
04/25/2017 04/25/2017
04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017

333 OPPOSITION by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones to 281 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 5. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
334 OPPOSITION by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones to 282 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 6. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
335 OPPOSITION by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones to 283 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 7. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
336 OPPOSITION by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones to 284 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 8. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
337 OPPOSITION by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones to 285 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 9. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
338 OPPOSITION by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones to 286 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 10. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
339 OPPOSITION by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones to 287 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 11. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
340 OPPOSITION by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones to 288 Motion in Limine No. 12. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
341 DECLARATION of Nicole Cahill in OPPOSITION to 281 Motion in Limine No. 5, 286 Motion in Limine No. 10, 277 Motion in Limine No. 1, 278 Motion in Limine No. 2. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Longyear, Dayton) Modified on 4/28/2017 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 04/25/2017)
342 OPPOSITION by Ivan Orozco to 279 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 3. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Whitefleet, John) Modified on 4/28/2017 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 04/25/2017)
343 OPPOSITION by Ivan Orozco to 283 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 7. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
344 OPPOSITION by Ivan Orozco to 289 Motion in Limine No. 13. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Whitefleet, John) Modified on 4/28/2017 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 04/25/2017)
345 OPPOSITION by James J. Mayfield to 298 Motion in Limine No. 1. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
346 OPPOSITION by James J. Mayfield to 299 Motion in Limine No. 2. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
347 OPPOSITION by James J. Mayfield to 275 MOTION IN LIMINE No. 3. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
348 OPPOSITION by James J. Mayfield to 300 Motion in Limine No. 4. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
349 OPPOSITION by James J. Mayfield to 301 Motion in Limine No. 5. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
350 OPPOSITION by James J. Mayfield to 267 Motion in Limine No. 1. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
351 OPPOSITION by James J. Mayfield to 293 Motion in Limine No. 2. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
352 OPPOSITION by James J. Mayfield to 268 Motion in Limine No. 3. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
353 OPPOSITION by James J. Mayfield to 294 Motion in Limine No. 4. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
354 OPPOSITION by James J. Mayfield to 295 Motion in Limine No. 5. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/25/2017)

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 34 of 37

04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017 04/25/2017
04/26/2017 04/27/2017 04/27/2017
04/27/2017 04/27/2017 04/27/2017 04/27/2017 04/27/2017 04/28/2017
04/28/2017
04/28/2017

355 OPPOSITION by James J. Mayfield to 296 Motion in Limine No. 6. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
356 OPPOSITION by James J. Mayfield to 269 Motion in Limine No. 7. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
357 OPPOSITION by James J. Mayfield to 270 Motion in Limine No. 8. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
358 OPPOSITION by James J. Mayfield to 271 Motion in Limine No. 9. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
359 OPPOSITION by James J. Mayfield to 272 Motion in Limine No. 10. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
360 DECLARATION of Joshua Piovia−Scott in OPPOSITION to 271 , 298 , 293 , 268 , 300 , 296 , 294 , 299 , 272 , 269 , 270 , 301 , 275 , 267 , 295 Motions in Limine. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration & Exhibits (Vol. 2 of 5), # 2 Declaration & Exhibits (Vol. 3 of 5), # 3 Declaration & Exhibits (Vol. 4 of 5), # 4 Declaration & Exhibits (Vol. 5 of 5))(Piovia−Scott, Joshua) Modified on 4/28/2017 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 04/25/2017)
361 AMENDED WITNESS LIST by James J. Mayfield. (Attachments: # 1 Addendum A (Amended) − Plaintiff's Witness List)(Piovia−Scott, Joshua) Modified on 4/28/2017 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 04/26/2017)
362 APPLICATION for Extraction Order to enforce Order of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum by Ivan Orozco re 274 Order,. (Attachments: # 1 Order)(Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
363 APPLICATION to Shorten Time by James J. Mayfield re 328 Amended Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement filed by University of California Davis Health System, Gregory Sokolov, Robert Hales. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lori Rifkin and Exhibits 1−2 in Support, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Application)(Rifkin, Lori) Modified on 4/28/2017 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 04/27/2017)
364 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff James J. Mayfield to 362 Application. (Rifkin, Lori) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
365 EX PARTE APPLICATION by County of Sacramento for Continue Trial. (Linkert, Richard) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
366 MEMORANDUM by County of Sacramento in support re 365 Ex Parte Application filed by County of Sacramento. (Linkert, Richard) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
367 DECLARATION of Van Longyear re 365 Ex Parte Application. (Linkert, Richard) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
368 PROPOSED ORDER re continue trial re 365 Ex Parte Application by County of Sacramento. (Linkert, Richard) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
369 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 3−31−17, before District Judge John A. Mendez, filed by Court Reporter Kimberly Bennett, Phone number 916−442−8420 E−mail reporter.bennett@gmail.com. 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 5/19/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/30/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/27/2017. (Bennett, K) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
370 MINUTE ORDER: Defendant Ivan Orozco filed an Application for Extraction Order to enforce Order of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum (ECF No. 362). The Court DENIES this application, without prejudice. (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
371 MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiff and Defendants have filed separate statements of the case (ECF No. 310 & 318). The parties are ordered to comply with the Courts Amended Pretrial Conference Order (ECF No. 264 at 2:1417) and submit a joint statement of the case no later than 8:30 a.m. Monday, May 1, 2017. A failure to comply with the Courts

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 35 of 37

04/28/2017 04/28/2017
04/28/2017 04/28/2017 04/28/2017 04/28/2017 04/30/2017 05/01/2017
05/01/2017 05/02/2017 05/03/2017

Order by that time will result in sanctions. (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
372 NOTICE of Change of Handling Trial Attorney by Ivan Orozco. Attorney Calnero, Carl added. (Calnero, Carl) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
373 MINUTE ORDER: After reviewing Defendants County of Sacramento and Scott Joness (collectively, Defendants) Ex Parte Application for an order to continue the trial, ECF No. 365, the Court denies their request. Defendants read too much into Tech−Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward−Clyde & Assocs., 38 Cal. 3d 488 (1985). Tech−Bilt did not hold that it is procedurally improper to have trial before evaluating whether a settlement agreement was reached in good faith. The court held that when a court determines whether parties made a good−faith settlement under California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, the court must apply a proportionate liability test (i.e., the settlement must be within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasors share of liability for the plaintiffs injuries). Tech−Bilt, 38 Cal. 3d at 499. Equally important, all parties were aware of the settlement between Plaintiffs and Regents since at least March 31, 2017 (the pretrial conference hearing date). Yet no party said anything at the conference about the possibility of continuing this trial until the settlement was approved by this Court. To raise this issue on the eve of trial causes the Court significant concern that the motion is made as a tactical maneuver. Such maneuvers are not well received by this Court.As for Plaintiff Mayfields Application to Shorten Time on Determination of Good Faith Settlement, ECF No. 363, for the reasons stated above, the Court also denies his request. Trial will commence May 1, 2017.IT IS SO ORDERED. (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) (Vine, H) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
374 AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST by James J. Mayfield. (Attachments: # 1 Addendum E) (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) Modified on 5/1/2017 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/28/2017)
375 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS by Ivan Orozco.(Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
376 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS by James J. Mayfield.(Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
377 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones.(Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
378 JOINT STATEMENT of the Case by Plaintiff James J. Mayfield. (Rifkin, Lori) Modified on 5/1/2017 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/30/2017)
379 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before District Judge John A. Mendez: JURY TRIAL held on 5/1/2017. Jury selected and sworn. Opening statments were heard. Jury Trial contined to 5/3/2017 at 09:15 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. Plaintiffs Counsel L. Rifkin; D. Stormer; J. Piova−Scott present. Defendants Counsel V. Longyear; R. Linkhart; N. Cahill; C. Calnero present. Court Reporter: K. O'Halloran. (Vine, H) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
380 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones for proceedings held on 5/1/17 − 5/26/17 (Duration of Trial) before Judge Mendez. Court Reporter Kelly OHalloran. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
381 ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 5/2/2017 GRANTING Plaintiff's Batson Motion. The court DISMISSES the eight jurors selected as the jury in this case and will start jury selection again on 5/8/2017 at 9:00am. Counsel for all parties are REQUIRED to appear tomorrow, 5/3/2017 at 9:15am. No witnesses will be required to be present tomorrow. (cc Jury Clerk Sacramento) (Donati, J) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
382 MINUTES (Text Only) for STATUS CONFERENCE held before District Judge John A. Mendez on 5/3/201: Court and parties discussed order issued by the Court late yesterday. Court and parties discussed housekeeping issues. Jury Trial set for 5/8/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. Plaintiffs Counsel Lori Rifkin and Dan Stormer present. Defendants Counsel Van Longyear, Nicole M. Cahill, Richard Linkert, Neal Lutterman and Carl J. Calnero present. Court Reporter/CD Number: Kelly O'Halloran. (Streeter, J) (Entered: 05/03/2017)

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 36 of 37

05/03/2017 05/04/2017 05/05/2017 05/05/2017
05/08/2017
05/09/2017 06/06/2017 06/16/2017 06/19/2017 08/29/2017
08/29/2017 10/03/2017 10/03/2017 10/03/2017

383 AMENDED TRANSCRIPT REQUEST re 380 by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones for proceedings held on 5/8/17−6/2/17 (estimated length of trial) before Judge Mendez. MULTIPLE REPORTERS REQUESTED (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 05/03/2017)
384 AMENDED PROPOSED VOIR DIRE by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones.(Longyear, Dayton) Modified on 5/5/2017 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 05/04/2017)
385 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Joshua Piovia−Scott in Support of Opposition to 269 Motion in Limine No. 7. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) Modified on 5/9/2017 (Reader, L). (Entered: 05/05/2017)
386 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only) issued by Courtroom Deputy J. Streeter for District Judge John A. Mendez on 05/05/2017: The Court has reconsidered County Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 2 (ECF No. 299 ). In reviewing the record, including the Motions for Summary Judgment, it is clear that the evidence regarding Plaintiff's rape allegations and the County's alleged failure to investigate those allegations is relevant to Plaintiff's ADA claim. County's Motion in Limine No. 2 is thus DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Streeter, J) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
387 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before District Judge John A. Mendez: STATUS CONFERENCE held on 5/8/2017. Parties reported to the Court that a global settlement of the action has been reached. Jury trial vacated. Plaintiffs Counsel L. Rifkin; J. Piova−Scott present. Defendants Counsel V. Longyear; N. Cahill; C. Calnero present. Court Reporter: K. O'Halloran. (Vine, H) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
388 Transcript Request 383 , 380 CANCELLED. (Longyear, Dayton) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
389 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison to 328 Amended Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement. (Rippy, Nicole) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
390 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Withdrawal of 328 AMENDED MOTION for Determination of Good Faith Settlement by Robert Hales, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System. (Lutterman, Neal) Modified on 6/19/2017 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 06/16/2017)
391 ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 6/19/2017 ORDERING that the JPS Defendants' 328 Motion for Good Faith Settlement Determination set to be heard on June 20, 2017 is deemed WITHDRAWN. The motion is dropped from calendar.(Becknal, R) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
392 MOTION to Approve Settlement and Establish a Special Needs Trust by James J. Mayfield. Motion Hearing set for 9/26/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Joshua Piovia−Scott and Exhibits 1−2 in Support of Motion to Approve, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Approve Settlement, # 3 Proof of Service re Notice and Petition)(Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 08/29/2017)
393 NOTICE to RESCHEDULE HEARING on 392 MOTION to Approve Settlement and Establish a Special Needs Trust : Motion Hearing set for 10/17/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 08/29/2017)
394 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION by Ivan Orozco to 392 MOTION to Approve Settlement and Establish a Special Needs Trust. (Whitefleet, John) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
395 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION by County of Sacramento, Scott Jones, James Lewis, Rick Pattison to 392 MOTION to Approve Settlement and Establish a Special Needs Trust. (Rippy, Nicole) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
396 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION by Robert Hales, Regents of the University of California, Gregory Sokolov, University of California Davis Health System to 392 MOTION to Approve Settlement and Establish a Special Needs Trust. (Lutterman, Neal) (Entered: 10/03/2017)

Case: 2:13-cv-2499 As of: 01/05/2019 05:54 PM PST 37 of 37

10/17/2017
11/03/2017 11/06/2017 12/21/2017 12/27/2017 09/17/2018
09/27/2018

397 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings before District Judge John A. Mendez: MOTION HEARING held on 10/17/2017. After hearing, the Court took the matter under advisement pending possible further hearing. Plaintiffs Counsel J. Piovia−Scott; K. Urbatsch present. Defendants Counsel N. Cahill; J. Whitefleet; B. Samuel present. Court Reporter: K. Barajas. (Vine, H) (Entered: 10/17/2017)
398 AMENDED 392 PROPOSED ORDER by James J. Mayfield. (Piovia−Scott, Joshua) Modified on 11/6/2017 (Benson, A.). (Entered: 11/03/2017)
399 ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 11/6/17, GRANTING in PART and DENYING in PART Plaintiffs' 392 Motion to Approve Settlement and Establish a Special Needs Trust. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
400 NOTICE of VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL by James J. Mayfield. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Piovia−Scott, Joshua) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
401 ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 12/27/2017. (CASE CLOSED) (Fabillaran, J) (Entered: 12/27/2017)
402 NOTICE of RELATED CASE 2:18−cv−02081, 2:18−cv−00044 by Leertese Beirge, Jennifer Bothun, Cody Garland, Armani Lee, Lorenzo Mays, Ricky Lee Richardson, Jr. Attorney Mendelson, Margot Knight added. (Mendelson, Margot) (Entered: 09/17/2018)
403 ORDER OF NON−RELATED CASES signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 9/27/2018 ACCORDINGLY Case 2:18−CV−2081 TLN KJN, shall not be reassigned to the undersigned judge. 402 (Reader, L) (Entered: 09/27/2018)