Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01404/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01404-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LISA FIDLER, individually, as heir

and mother of ANGELA DAVENPORT

RAMIREZ, Decedent, and RITO H.

RAMIREZ, as heir and father of

ANGELA DAVENPORT RAMIREZ, Decedent,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE,

et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C-04-1404 SC

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Following the death of their daughter, Angela Davenport

Ramirez ("Decedent"), Lisa Fidler and Rito H. Ramirez

("Plaintiffs") brought this action against the San Mateo County

Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Don Horsley in his capacity as Sheriff,

the San Mateo County Women's Correctional Facility, and county

employees Lillian Johnson, Nomalee Tilman, Rosemary Taylor, Daren

Schofield, and Mahesh Mohan Khilnani ("Defendants"). In the

motion at hand, Defendants have moved for summary judgment. For

the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion.

II. BACKGROUND

Decedent was booked into the San Mateo Correctional Facility

on March 6, 2003. Complaint at 4. On April 6, 2003, Decedent

committed suicide, allegedly owing to severe psychological

Case 3:04-cv-01404-SC Document 69 Filed 12/06/05 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

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

withdrawal symptoms resulting from a lack of access to doctorprescribed medicine. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiffs allege that

Defendants knew of Decedent's medical needs but failed to

adequately respond. Id. at 7.

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

by denying Decedent medical assistance and by failing to monitor

Decedent's activities while in custody. Id. at 4-8. Defendants

have moved for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claim under Section

1983. Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary

Judgment at 24 ("Defs.' Mem."). 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate only "if the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A genuine issue of fact exists when the

non-moving party produces evidence on which a reasonable trier of

fact could find in its favor viewing the record as a whole in

light of the evidentiary burden the law places on that party. 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252-256 (1986). 

IV. DISCUSSION

Defendants make three contentions in their motion for summary

judgment. First, Defendants assert that they did not act with a

"sufficiently culpable state of mind" to amount to deliberate

indifference and therefore did not violate Section 1983 by

depriving Decedent of her Eighth Amendment and due process rights. 

Defs.' Mem. at 13-18. Second, Defendants contend that qualified

Case 3:04-cv-01404-SC Document 69 Filed 12/06/05 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

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

immunity protects the individual Defendants from liability for the

alleged violation of Decedent's civil rights. Id. at 18-22. 

Finally, Defendants contend that the County of San Mateo is not

liable for the alleged civil rights violation because it had no

unconstitutional policy or custom that led to Decedent's death. 

Id. at 22-24. 

A. Deliberate Indifference

i. Eighth Amendment

"To establish an Eighth Amendment violation, a prisoner must

satisfy both the objective and subjective components of a two-part

test." Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004)

(citation and internal quotation marks removed). First, "there

must be a demonstration that the prison official deprived the

prisoner of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." 

Id. Second, the plaintiff "must demonstrate that the prison

official acted with deliberate indifference in doing so." Id.

It is deliberate indifference when a prison official "knows

of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety." 

Id. (citation and quotation mark removed). "[T]he prison official

must not only be aware of the facts from which the inference could

be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, but that

person must also draw that inference." Id. (citation and

quotation marks removed). If a prison official "should have been

aware of the risk, but was not," then there has been no violation

of the Eighth Amendment "no matter how severe the risk." Id.

(citation and quotation marks removed). 

It is a question of fact whether Defendants' knew of

Case 3:04-cv-01404-SC Document 69 Filed 12/06/05 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

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 4

Decedent's allegedly fragile psychological state, or whether they

could infer from their knowledge Decedent's alleged condition that 

that a substantial risk of serious harm existed. Whether

Defendants actually drew such an inference and failed to act

accordingly is also a question of fact. 

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion for summary judgment

as to the Eighth Amendment claim. 

 ii. Due Process

The state's interference with a parent's "fundamental liberty

interest in the companionship and society of his or her child" is

"remediable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060

(citation and quotation marks removed). 

As with the previous claim, whether Defendants' alleged acts

and omissions constitute state interference with Decedent's

liberty interest is a question of fact. Accordingly, the Court

denies the motion for summary judgment as to the due process

claim. 

B. Qualified Immunity

The threshold question is whether the "facts alleged show the

officer's conduct violated a constitutional right." Saucier v.

Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001). 

 The Court finds that it is unable to rule on this question

until the complicated factual issue of whether correctional

officers and medical staff has culpable states of mind are

resolved at trial. 

//

//

Case 3:04-cv-01404-SC Document 69 Filed 12/06/05 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

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 5

C. Liability of San Mateo County for the Alleged Civil

Rights Violation

Defendants contend that the County of San Mateo cannot be

held liable for the alleged civil rights violation because it has

no unconstitutional custom or policy that led to the alleged

violation. Defs.' Mem. at 22-23. Specifically, Defendants assert

that their policies and procedures "have passed regulatory

muster." Id. at 23. Decedent, Defendants contend, was properly

admitted and treated according to their policies which afford

inmates ample opportunity to express their needs and have them

addressed. Id. Defendants also contend that Plaintiffs have not

proven that Plaintiffs acted with a culpable state of mind. Id.

at 22-24. 

Plaintiffs contend that an unconstitutional policy existed

and its implementation led to the violation of Decedent's rights. 

Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that "Defendant San Mateo

maintained a policy or custom of deliberate indifference to the

serious needs of Ms. Ramirez and their official custom or policy

was the moving force behind a deprivation of Ms. Ramirez's

rights." Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for

Summary Judgment at 10 ("Pls.' Mem."). Plaintiffs contend that

the correction officers "failed to comply with the required state

regulations and accepted correctional practices" and thereby

caused Decedent's death. Id. at 18. 

The U.S. Supreme Court requires a "plaintiff seeking to

impose liability on a municipality under § 1983 to identify a

municipal "policy" or "custom" that caused the plaintiff's

Case 3:04-cv-01404-SC Document 69 Filed 12/06/05 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

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 6

injury." Board of County Commissioners of Bryan County, Oklahoma

v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1994). A plaintiff must also

demonstrate that the "municipal action was taken with the

requisite degree of culpability." Id. 

The Court finds that there is a dispute as to the material

fact whether there was an unconstitutional policy or custom and

whether the action was taken with the requisite degree of

culpability. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion for summary

judgment as to this claim. 

V. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that the questions of whether Defendants

acted with deliberate indifference, whether Defendants are

entitled to qualified immunity, and whether the County of San

Mateo is liable for a constitutional violation cannot be decided

on a motion for summary judgment because they involve disputes

over material facts. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES in its entirety

the motion for summary judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2005

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-01404-SC Document 69 Filed 12/06/05 Page 6 of 6