Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-01794/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-01794-5/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

MELODIE HUGHES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF MENDOCINO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01794-NJV

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 62

Plaintiff Melodie Hughes (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se in this action filed against the 

County of Mendocino, Sheriff Thomas Allen, Deputy Chora, Deputy DeMarco, California 

Forensic Medical Group (“CFMG”), and Dr. Taylor Fithian. On March 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 

Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Defendants California Forensic Medical Group and Dr. 

Taylor Fithian filed an Answer to the SAC, while the County of Mendocino, Sheriff Thomas 

Allen, Deputy Chora, and Deputy DeMarco filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 62) pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff filed a Response to the Motion (Doc. 

68), to which Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. 70). The court took the matter under submission on 

the papers. (Doc. 69). For the reasons that follow the court will grant the motion in part and deny 

the motion in part. 

FACTS AS ALLEGED IN THE SAC

The Complaint is predicated on the events surrounding the death of Plaintiff‟s son, Ivan 

Slater (“Slater”). Slater was arrested by Deputy DeMarco on March 22, 2014, and taken to the 

Mendocino County Jail. SAC. (Doc. 58) at ¶21. When Slater was arrested, he was suffering 

“heroin withdrawals” and Deputy DeMarco was aware of Slater‟s medical need. Id. at ¶22. At 

the jail, Deputy Chora completed a “Medical Booking Screening paperwork.” Slater became very 

Case 1:15-cv-01794-NJV Document 72 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 6
2

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

sick in the first 24 hours. Id. at 26. The CFMG failed to follow protocol and never summoned a 

doctor. Id. at ¶30-32.

On March 26, 2014, Slater was released on his own recognizance. Id. at ¶35. On March 

27, 2014, Slater died. Slater did not use heroin within the last two hours of his life. Id. at ¶38. 

CLAIMS

Plaintiff presents six claims for relief in the SAC: (1) the First Claim is pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, based on alleged violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the 

United States Constitution and is against all Defendants; (2) the Second Claim is pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, based on alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United 

States Constitution for deprivation of the liberty interests in the parent-child relationship and is 

against all Defendants; (3) the Third Claim is for failure to furnish/summon medical care arising 

under California state law and is against all Defendants; (4) the Fourth Claim is for negligent 

supervision, training, hiring, and retention under California state law and is against Sheriff 

Allman, CFMG, and Dr. Taylor Fithian; (5) the Fifth Claim is a negligence claim under California 

state law and is against all Defendants; and (6) the Sixth Claim is for wrongful death under 

California state law and is brought against all Defendants. 

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

is to test the legal sufficiency of the claims stated in the complaint. A motion to dismiss may be 

brought under Rule 12(b)(6) when the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted.

A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). While Rule 8 “does not require „detailed 

factual allegations,‟” a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to „state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.‟” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 

1937,1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570, 127 S.Ct. 

1955, 1955 (2007)). Facial plausibility is established “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

Case 1:15-cv-01794-NJV Document 72 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 6
3

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

misconduct alleged.” Id. Thus, in order to survive a motion to dismiss, the nonmoving party must 

allege facts that are “enough to raise a right to above the speculative level . . . on the assumption 

that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

555.

Dismissal of a complaint can be based on either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the 

lack of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 

901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a 

claim, the court will take all material allegations as true and construe them in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff. NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986). 

DISCUSSION

A. Deputy Defendants

In her Response, Plaintiff concedes the Fourth Claim against Deputy DeMarco and all 

claims except the Third Claim against Deputy Chora. In addition, Plaintiff does not oppose 

Defendants‟ request to dismiss the Sixth Claim against the deputy Defendants.

1. First-Third Claims against Deputy DeMarco

Defendants move for dismissal of the First, Second, and Third claims against Deputy 

DeMarco on the basis that Plaintiff has failed to plead that the deputy acted with deliberate 

indifference. As Defendants state: 

Establishing deliberate indifference requires that a plaintiff “show [(1)] a „serious 

medical need‟ by demonstrating that „failure to treat a prisoner's condition could 

result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of 

pain,‟” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting McGuckin v. 

Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992)) (2) that “defendant‟s response to the 

need was deliberately indifferent.” Id. “Deliberate indifference may be established 

by evidence of „(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or 

possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.‟” M.H. v. County 

of Alameda, 62 F. Supp. 3d 1049, 1076 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (quoting Jett v. Penner, 

439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)).

Def. Mot. (Doc. 62) at 9. Defendants assert that “there are no allegations in the SAC that 

DeMarco‟s actions of taking Slater to the MCJ constituted a purposeful act or failure to respond to 

Slater‟s pain or possible medical need.” Id. at 4. The court does not agree. Plaintiff alleges that 

Deputy DeMarco, the arresting officer, knew of Slater‟s need for medical help and, acting with 

Case 1:15-cv-01794-NJV Document 72 Filed 05/13/16 Page 3 of 6
4

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

deliberate indifference, failed to summon it. SAC (Doc. 58) at ¶¶ 22, 23, & 41. This is sufficient 

to state a cause of action under the First, Second, and Third Claims against the deputy and this 

request for dismissal is denied.

2. The Third Claim against Deputy Chora

The SAC alleges that Deputy Chora “failed to complete a medical screening and call for a 

nurse” and did not mention heroin detoxification on the screening form. Id. at ¶¶ 17 &24. 

Defendants argue that “there are no allegations in Plaintiff‟s SAC that either DeMarco or Chora 

interacted with Slater at a time when he was in immediate need of medical care.” Defs.‟ Mot. 

(Doc. 62) at 11. However, the SAC alleges that Slater was in need of medical care upon arrest and 

then describes his condition as worsening. Thus, Plaintiff has set forth a claim for deliberate 

indifference and the request to dismiss Deputy Chora from the Third Claim is denied.

3. The Fifth Claim against Deputy DeMarco

This Claim for relief is a negligence claim brought under California law, and against 

Deputy Demarco asserts that “nurses and officers failed to comply with a minimum professional 

standard in the provision of medical care to [] Slater.” SAC (Doc. 58) at ¶73. This claim is 

separate and distinct from the Third Claim which was brought as a failure to summon or furnish 

medical care under California state law. There are no allegations in the SAC that Deputy 

DeMarco provided medical care, or was under an obligation to personally provide medical care to 

a professional standard for Slater. Rather, the allegations are that Deputy DeMarco failed to 

properly summon medical care. Those claims are properly brought under the Third Claim and not 

this claim. Any failure to summon medical care against Deputy DeMarco contained in this claim 

is duplicative of the failure to summon medical care claim in the Third Claim. Accordingly, this 

claim is dismissed as to Deputy DeMarco.

B. Defendants County of Mendocino and Sheriff Allman

1. The Fourth Claim against the County of Mendocino

The County moves for dismissal of the Fourth Claim. The Fourth Claim was previously 

dismissed against the County. The SAC does not assert a new claim against the County. 

Accordingly, that request is denied as moot.

Case 1:15-cv-01794-NJV Document 72 Filed 05/13/16 Page 4 of 6
5

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

2. The Fifth Claim against the County and Sheriff Allman

The County and Sheriff Allman move for dismissal from this claim on the basis that the 

County is immune and that Sheriff Allman was not engaged in the healing arts. Mot. (Doc. 62) at 

14. The allegations in the SAC are that “nurses and officers” failed to provide a professional 

standard of care in the provision of medical care and that the other defendants “failed to adopt 

policies, procedures, and training for staff,” which resulted in there being “NO MEDICAL CARE 

AT THE MENDOCINO COUNTY JAIL!” SAC (Doc. 58) at 11 (capitalization in the original). 

As the court instructed in its Order of October 27, 2015, a “public entity is liable for injury 

proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of 

his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of 

action against that employee or his personal representative.” (Doc. 37) at 6 (quoting Cal. Gov‟t 

Code § 815.2(a)). The court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff has failed to set forth a claim 

under § 815.2(a). Plaintiff has failed to plead that it was within the scope of Sheriff Allman‟s 

employment to provide the policies, procedures, and training for staff regarding the provision of 

medical care. Again, this is not a failure to summon medical or furnish medical care claim, but 

rather whether the medical care provided was to the “professional standard of care.” As Plaintiff 

states in the SAC, it was CFMG that provided medical services at the county jail, not the Sheriff. 

Accordingly, Defendants‟ request that the County and Defendant Allman be dismissed from the 

Fifth Claim is granted.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that the motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) is 

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Further it is ORDERED that this matter is set for a case management conference at 2:00 

p.m. on July 26, 2016:

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2016

______________________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:15-cv-01794-NJV Document 72 Filed 05/13/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELODIE HUGHES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF MENDOCINO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01794-NJV 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee of the U.S. District Court, 

Northern District of California.

That on May 13, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Melodie Hughes

P.O. Box 207

Willits, CA 95490 

Dated: May 13, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Robert Illman, Law Clerk to the 

Honorable NANDOR J. VADAS

Case 1:15-cv-01794-NJV Document 72 Filed 05/13/16 Page 6 of 6