Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02506/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02506-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD N. GALBRAITH, Executor of the

ESTATE OF NELSON GALBRAITH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA; ANGELO

OZOA, M.D., individually and as an agent of

Santa Clara County,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 03-2506 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS RE

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE

MONELL CLAIM

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON MARCH 24, 2006:

The Court tentatively GRANTS the motion of defendants County of Santa Clara and

Angelo Ozoa, M.D. (collectively “Defendants”) for summary judgment regarding plaintiff

Donald N. Galbraith, executory of the estate of Nelson Galbraith’s (“Plaintiff”) claim against

the County pursuant to Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). The Court has

reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does not wish to hear the

parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities

not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). The parties

will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

Case 3:03-cv-02506-JSW Document 253 Filed 03/23/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

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

2

Each party will have fifteen minutes to address the following questions:

(1) Is the prosecution of Galbraith allegedly without probable cause the constitutional

violation underlying the Monell claim? If not, what is the alleged underlying

constitutional violation? 

(2) To bring a successful Monell claim against a municipal entity based on the conduct made

by an employee, the conduct must have been made by one of the municipality’s

authorized decisionmakers, i.e. by an official who “possesses final authority to establish

municipal policy with respect to the challenged action.” Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati,

475 U.S. 469, 479-81 (1986). What authority and evidence in the record supports

Plaintiff’s contention that Dr. Oza was the final decision maker with respect to the

County’s decision to file charges against and prosecute Galbraith?

(3) “[A] municipality can be found liable under § 1983 only where the municipality itself

causes the constitutional violation at issue.” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385

(1989) (emphasis in original). Thus, a court’s “first inquiry in any case alleging

municipal liability under § 1983 is the question whether there is a direct causal link

between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation.” Id; see

also Board of County Commissioner of Bryan County, Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404

(1997) (“[I]t is not enough for a § 1983 plaintiff merely to identify conduct properly

attributable to the municipality. The plaintiff must also demonstrate that, through its

deliberate conduct, the municipality was the ‘moving force’ behind the injury alleged.”)

(emphasis in original). Even if the presumption of prosecutorial independence does not

apply, the County may still demonstrate that the decision of the District Attorney to file

charges and prosecute Galbraith was a superceding or independent intervening cause that

breaks the causal link between Dr. Ozoa’s conduct, or any of the alleged polices or

practices of the Office of the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner, and Galbraith’s

alleged constitutional injury. In light of County’s evidence that Linda Condron’s

decision to file charges was made a year and a half after the Dr. Ozoa conducted the

Case 3:03-cv-02506-JSW Document 253 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

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

3

autopsy and that she did not rely on his autopsy report in making her decision, on what

evidence to the contrary in the record does Plaintiff rely to demonstrate the conduct by

Dr. Ozoa, or any of the alleged polices or practices of the Office of the Santa Clara

County Medical Examiner, were the “moving force” of the decision to file charges

against and prosecute Galbraith?

(4) Do the parties have anything further to add?

Dated: March 23, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-02506-JSW Document 253 Filed 03/23/06 Page 3 of 3