N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DAT THANH LUONG, De c e a se d, through his C o-Suc c e s sors in Inte re st; AI QIONG ZHONG, Individua lly and a s m othe r and ne xt frie n d for; W .L., a m inor, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s, and M AI C HAI, Pla i ntiff,
v. NAPA STATE HOSPITAL; C ALIFOR

NIA DEPAR TM ENT OF STATE HOSPITALS; PAM AHLIN; DOLLY M ATTEUC C I; C INDY B LAC K; PATR IC IA TYLER ,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 19-16846

D.C . No. 3:17-c v-06675-EM C
M EM O R ANDUM *

DAT THANH LUONG, De c e a se d, through his C o-Suc c e s sors in Inte re st; AI QIONG ZHONG, Individua lly and a s m othe r and ne xt frie n d for; W .L., a m inor, No. 19-16875

D.C . No. 3:17-c v-06675-EM C



# FIL ED DEC 22 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla nts,
and M AI C HAI, Pla i ntiff,
v. NAPA STATE HOSPITAL; C ALIFOR

NIA DEPAR TM ENT OF STATE HOSPITALS; PAM AHLIN; DOLLY M ATTEUC C I; C INDY B LAC K; PATR IC IA TYLER ,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Edwa rd M . C he n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 17, 2020 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd SC HR OEDER

and B ER ZON, C i rc uit Judge s . This 42 U.S.C
. § 1983 c a se arise s out of thetra gic de at h of Dat Tha

nh Luong a t the ha nds of his Ala

m e da C ounty ja il c e ll m at e . Luong ha d be e n found inc o m pe te nt to sta

nd tria l a n d wa s on a wa itlist for a dm ission to Na pa State Hospita l at the tim e of his de ath. His fa m ily ’ s c la im s a ga i nst the C ounty and its
2offic ia ls ha

ve now be e n se ttle d, a

nd a lm ost a ll of the c la im s a g a inst C a lifornia sta te e ntitie s a n d e m ploy e e s ha

ve be e n dism isse d. The fam ily ’ s only re m a ining c la im s are a ga inst four supervisory -le ve l De pa rtm e nt of Sta

t e Hospita ls e m

ploy e e s, who bring this inte

rloc utory a ppe a l se e king re vie w of the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of qua lifie d im

m unity on one due proc e ss c l a im : tha t the hospita l e m

ploy e e s should have notifie d inte re ste d

pa rtie s a bout theava ila

bility of a n inform a l psy c hiatric
a c uity re vie w proc e ss by

whic h ja il inm ate s with a c ute ne e d s c ould by pa ss the hospita l wa itlist a

nd be a dm itte d dire c tly
. Qua lifie d im

m unity prote c ts gove rnm e nt offic ia ls from c ivil lia bility for dam a ge s unle ss pla intiffs c an show tha t the offic ia ls viola

te d a right tha t wa s

“ c l e arly e sta b lishe d” unde r fe de ra l la

w. Mitc he ll v . Forsy th , 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). Pla intiffs, e m

pha siz i ng tha

t Luong wa s orde re d c om m itte d to the hospita l’ s c are , urge tha

t a spe c ia l duty

atta c he d a s a

re sult of tha

t c om m itm e nt. A right is not c le arly

e sta blishe d, howe ve r, unle ss “ e xisting pre c e de nt [ha s] pla c e d the s tat utory or c onstitutiona

l que stion be y ond de bate .” Ashc roft v . al-K idd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011). The re is no pre c e de nt re quiring hospita l e m ploy e e s, a s a m atte r of fe de ra l la

w , to inform

ja il offic ia ls, de fe nse c ounse l, or othe rs of spe c ia l proc e d ure s a va ila ble to inm ate s awa iting hospita l a dm ission. M o re ove r, the De pa rtm e nt of Sta

te Hospita ls a dopte d e m e rge nc y re gula tions public iz ing a

nd
3form a liz ing the a c u ity re vie w proc e dure in Se pte m be r 2016, a

pproxim ate ly

one m onth prior to Luong’ s de ath. C a l. C ode R e gs. tit. 9, § 4717. It is diffic u lt to justify the im p osition of mone ta

ry dam a ge s a ga inst the se hospita l e m ploy e e s on the t he ory tha t the y we re a dditiona lly

re quire d to giveindividualiz e d notific ations to re le v an t a c tors in Luong’ s c a se . At the ve ry le a s t, the hospita l e m

ploy e e s a re e ntitle d to qua lifie d im

m unity
. The c lose s t a

uthority in our c irc uit is O re gon Adv oc ac

y C e nte r v . Mink

, 322 F.3d 1101 (9th C ir. 2003), upon which Pla intiffs re l y . Mink re c ogniz e d the plight of inc arc e ra te d de fe nda

nts re q uiring psy c h iat

ric a s sista nc e , but it did not involve
a c uity re vie ws or a

ny c om pa ra ble proc e dure for by

pa ssing hospita

l a dm ission
wa itlists, nor did it involve any e m ploy e e ’ s duty

to provideany

kind of notic e to re le va nt individua

ls. As a n a c tion for a

n injunc tion, M

ink d id not involve individual lia

bility at a ll, a nd the re lie f grante d wa s pre m i se d in substa n tia l pa rt on
a Ore gon sta

te sta tute and a distric t c ourt injunc tion ba se d on tha t sta tute . Id. at 1115–16, 1122 n.13. Mink the re fore did not e sta blish a ny right unde r fe de ra l la

w re le va nt he re . W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Pla intiffs’ c ross-a ppe a l, be c a

use it is not from a fina l judgm e nt a

nd doe s not c om e within the e xc e ption re c ogniz e d for issue s ine xtric a

bly inte rtwine d with a

n inte rloc utory

a p pe a l from

a de n ia l of
4qua lifie d im

m unity
. Se e Horton by

Horton v . C

ity of Santa Maria , 915 F.3d 592, 603 (9th C i r. 2019). The distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing qua lifie d im m unity is RE V E R SE D and the m atte r RE M ANDE D with instruc tions to gra nt De fe nda

nts-Appe lla

nts’ m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt on qua lifie d im m unity grounds. Pla intiffs’ inte rloc utory c ross-a ppe a l, no. 19-16875, is D ISM ISSE D for la c k of jurisdic tion.

5