2013-00152843-CU-CR

Edward Sotelo vs. Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department

Nature of Proceeding:    Hearing on Demurrer

Filed By:  Chalfant, Robert L.

County of Sacramento (“County Defendant”), Deputy Raymond Won, Deputy Mark
Filer, Deputy Reed, Deputy Yamomoto, Deputy Jeffrey Spackman, and Doctor Bauer’s
(together, “Individual Defendants”) Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED
with leave to amend.

Plaintiff’s Complaint, which is not a model pleading in any respect, alleges four causes
of action against all defendants: the first cause of action for assault, the second cause
of action for battery, and the third and fourth causes of action for violation of his civil
rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of adequate medical care and for the general
conditions of his confinement, respectively.

Defendants demur to all causes of action on the basis that they fail to state a cause of
action against any defendant, and County Defendant further demurs to the first and
second cause of action on the basis that it is immune from said claims.

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a retired and disabled army veteran. He alleges
that he was arrested and detained by Defendants in the Sacramento County Main Jail
on two separate occasions: first, from January 5 to January 12, 2012, and second, on
November 7, 2012, for an unspecified period of time.  In the first instance, Plaintiff
claims that he was “assaulted” in his cell by an agent of County Defendant (Comp. ¶
17), and that although his medical needs paperwork stated that he required the lower
bunk, he was not given the lower bunk and was made to sleep in a mat on the floor.
During Plaintiff’s second detainment, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants took his custom
arch insert and foot brace, and that Defendants refused to return these items or
provide Plaintiff with his prescription medications or with milk of magnesia.  Plaintiff
further avers that on one occasion he fainted, and a deputy “kicked Plaintiff’s leg” out
of the cell door and placed him over a urine drain while Defendant Wong called
Plaintiff’s mother.  (Id. ¶¶ 38-39.)

Individual Defendants

The Demurrer as to the Individual Defendants is SUSTAINED with leave to amend on
all causes of action.  Plaintiff fails to allege any specific facts as to the Individual
Defendant that are sufficient to state any of the four causes of action.  Defendants
argue that Plaintiff has not made any specific allegations against any of the Individual
Defendants, aside from the following two statements: (1) after Plaintiff fainted, Deputy
Wong “called Plaintiff’s mother” (Comp. ¶39), and (2) Deputy Spackman “took Plaintiff
to the medical unit and documented Plaintiff’s injuries” after they discussed Plaintiff’s
injuries.  (Comp. ¶ 37.)  Defendants contend that these statements are insufficient to
state any cause of action against Deputy Wong or Deputy Spackman.  And because  Plaintiff fails to allege any specific facts as to the remaining Individual Defendants,
Defendant argues that the Demurrer should be sustained as to all causes of action
against the Individual Defendants.  Plaintiff responds that the Complaint “includes
allegations as to each individual defendant ‘acting as an agent of [County]
Defendant.’” (Opp. at 5.)   Plaintiff further claims in his Opposition that, “following
discovery he will more clearly be able to identify and delineate individual blame to each
individually named defendant.” (Opp. at 5.)  Consequently, Plaintiff argues that his
general allegations describing “agent” behavior are sufficient to state all four causes of
action against the Individual Defendants.

The Court agrees with Defendants.  While the Complaint alleges actions by “agents” of
County Defendant or “deputies”, it is unclear on the face of the Complaint whether
Plaintiff contends that any or all of these “agents” and/or “deputies” are, in fact, the
Individual Defendants.  (See, e.g., Comp. ¶¶  17, 38.)  Moreover, Plaintiff’s claim that
he will be able to determine individual blame after discovery is in apparent
contradiction with Plaintiff’s Complaint, which names specific individuals as
defendants.  Because Plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to allege a cause of
action for assault, battery, or violations of Section 1983 against the Individual
Defendants, the Demurrer as to the Individual Defendants is sustained with leave to
amend.

County Defendant

The Demurrer as to the entity defendant (County) is also SUSTAINED with leave to
amend on all causes of action.  First, Defendants argue that County Defendant is
immune from the state law causes of action for assault and battery under Cal. Gov.
Code § 844.6(a)(2), and therefore the Demurrer as to the first and second causes of
action against County Defendant should be sustained.  (Moving Mem. at 7.)  Plaintiff
does not address this argument in his Opposition, effectively conceding its merit.

Section 844.6(a)(2) immunizes public entities from suit based upon an alleged injury to
a prisoner.  Per §844, Plaintiff is considered a “prisoner” during all relevant time
periods.  Plaintiff has failed to show that the first and second causes of action lie
outside this immunity.  As a result, Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s assault and
battery causes of action as to County Defendant is sustained with leave to amend.

Next, Defendant contends that the Demurrer as to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims (third
and fourth causes of action) against County Defendant should be sustained because
there is no respondeat superior liability for municipalities under Section 1983. (Moving
Mem. at 8-9.)  Plaintiff counters that a Section 1983 claim can be brought against a
municipality where the alleged constitutional violation was caused by an action taken
pursuant to official municipal policy.  (Opp. at 9.)  Without pointing to any specific
allegations, Plaintiff generally contends that the actions alleged in the Complaint
demonstrate a violation of his constitutional rights under municipal policy.

To successfully bring a Section 1983 claim against a municipality, a plaintiff must
plead and prove three elements: (1) The government’s official(s) must have violated
plaintiff’s constitutional rights; (2) the violation must be a part of policy or custom and
may not be an isolated incident; and (3) a nexus must link the specific policy or custom
to the injury. Monell v. Dept. of Social Services (1978) 436 U.S. 658, 690-92.
Generally, “[l]ocal governing bodies … can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary
… relief where … the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or
executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and
promulgated by that body’s officers.” (Monell, supra, 436 U.S. at p. 690, fn. omitted.)
Section 1983 was enacted to provide compensation “to those deprived of their federal
rights by state actors,” a category that includes cities and other local governments. (
Felder v. Casey (1988) 487 U.S. 131, 141.)  Here, the Complaint, as currently pled,
does not establish any of the three requisite elements.  Accordingly, the Demurrer as
to the third and fourth causes of action against the County is sustained with leave to
amend.

Plaintiff may file and serve an Amended Complaint on or before June 27, 2014.
Response to be filed and served within 10 days of service of the amended complaint,
15 days if served by mail.

The minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.