Mary Gordon, successor-in-interest for decedent, Matthew Shawn Gordon, individually, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
County of Orange; Orange County Sheriff's Department; Sandra Hutchens, Orange County Sheriff - Coroner; Orange County Central Men's Jail; Orange County Health Care Agency; Does, 5 through 10, inclusive; Robert Denney; Brian Tunque; Brianne Garcia; Debra Finley, Defendants-Appellees.
Argued
and Submitted December 8, 2017 Pasadena, California
Appeal
from the United States District Court for the Central
District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge,
Presiding D.C. No. 8:14-cv-01050-CJC-DFM
David
A. Schlesinger (argued), Jacobs & Schlesinger LLP, San
Diego, California; Cameron Sehat, The Sehat Law Firm PLC,
Irvine, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Pancy
Lin (argued) and S. Frank Harrell, Lynberg & Watkins,
Orange, California, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit
Judges, and Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, [*] District Judge.
SUMMARY[**]
42
U.S.C. § 1983
The
panel vacated the district court's summary judgment in a
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims of inadequate
medical care under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, arising from the death of Matthew Gordon when he
was a pretrial detainee in the Orange County Men's
Central Jail; and remanded for further proceedings.
The
panel held that given developments in Section 1983
jurisprudence, including the Supreme Court's decision in
Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S.Ct. 2466 (2015), and
this court's en banc opinion in Castro v.
County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016),
the proper standard of review of such claims was one of
objective indifference, not subjective indifference. The
panel held that because the district court applied a
subjective standard to the plaintiff's claims of
inadequate medical care against individual defendants, the
grant of summary judgment was in error.
The
panel declined to address the individual defendants'
claim of qualified immunity in the first instance.
The
panel held that the district court improperly granted summary
judgment for the County of Orange and associated entities on
the ground that the plaintiff could not establish a custom or
practice sufficient under Monell v. Department of Social
Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). The panel left this
question for the district court to address in the first
instance using the proper standard
OPINION
GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge:
This
case arises from the death of Matthew Gordon
("Gordon") within 30 hours of being detained in the
Orange County Men's Central Jail (the "County
Jail"). Plaintiff Mary Gordon, successor-in-interest for
decedent, sued defendants Robert Denny, Brian Tunque, Brianne
Garcia, and Debra Finley ("the Individual
Defendants"); and the County of Orange and associated
entities ("the Entity Defendants") under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for violating Gordon's right to adequate
medical care under the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Given developments in Section 1983 jurisprudence,
including the Supreme Court's decision in Kingsley v.
Hendrickson, 135 S.Ct. 2466 (2015), and our en
banc decision in Castro v. County of Los
Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016), we conclude that
the proper standard of review for such claims is one of
objective indifference, not subjective indifference.
Accordingly, summary judgment is vacated and the case is
remanded to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with this decision.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
The
Individual Defendants sought summary judgment on the ground
that the plaintiff lacked evidence of their alleged
deliberate indifference to the decedent's health or
safety. The Entity Defendants also sought summary judgment
based upon the plaintiff's failure to show a custom or
practice sufficient under Monell v. Department of Social
Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). In this regard, the
plaintiff had proceeded on two theories which she alleged led
to Gordon's death. First, the plaintiff alleged the
systematic use of the wrong intake form which resulted in the
misclassification and misplacement of detainees. In
particular, she claimed the Entity Defendants used a form
designed to address alcohol withdrawal rather than one
designed for opiate ...