In Horton v. City of Santa Maria, published February 1, 2019, a divided 9th Circuit panel affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court order denying summary judgment to a police officer and his city employer in a case brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and California Government Code section 845.6. The plaintiff was arrested after slashing the tires of a vehicle his girlfriend was riding in. He admitted to hitting the girlfriend in the past. While in the holding cell at the police station, he told the defendant officer of various troubles in his life, and that he was nervous being in a cell, but twice denied needing medical care. Another officer referred to the possibility of a psych consult for the plaintiff. The plaintiff's mother talked to him on the phone. The officer then spoke to the mother on the phone for about 15 minutes. The mother told the officer the son had engaged in self-harm and suicidal ideation. While the officer talked with the mother, the plaintiff undid his belt, looped it through the bars, and hanged himself. The plaintiff was left alone for a half hour, during which he developed brain damage from the hanging. The district court denied summary judgment to the officer and the city on the federal and state claims.
The 9th Circuit panel unanimously reversed denial of summary judgment as to the section 1983 claim against the officer. Because insufficient case law established that the officer's actions amounted to deliberate indifference under the then-prevailing Fourteenth Amendment standard for denial of medical care to pretrial detainees, any Fourteenth Amendment violation was not clearly established. The officer was therefore entitled to qualified immunity. The court also unanimously ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the denial of summary judgment to the city on the Monell claim. While denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is immediately appealable, denial of summary judgment to a municipal defendant may be appealed only if reversal on the qualified immunity issue as to the individual will also lead to reversal for the municipality. That standard was not met here, because the municipality could be held liable even if the officer was entitled to qualified immunity due to lack of clearly-established law.
The majority held that the district court also properly denied summary judgment on the state law claim. Under the facts, the majority found triable issues of fact on whether the information the defendant officer had showed that the plaintiff required immediate medical care to prevent his suicide attempt. The dissenting judge argued that there was no evidence that the plaintiff required immediate medical care, or that immediate medical care would have prevented the suicide attempt or injury. The dissenting judge further criticized the majority for following 9th Circuit case law interpreting Government Code section 845.6 whcih the California appellate courts subsequently criticized.
Leave a Reply