Magee v. County of Tuolumne

Opinion

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7

8 CASE NO. 1:19cv1522-AWI-SAB HOPE MAGEE, et al., 9 ORDER: Plaintiffs, 10 (1) GRANTING SUMMARY vs. 11 JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF STANISLAUS COUNTY ON FIFTH COUNTY OF TUOLOMNE, et al., 12 CAUSE OF ACTION; AND

Defendants. 13 (2) CLOSING CASE

15 (Doc. No. 84) 16

17 18

20 21 On March 28, 2022, the Court granted summary judgment in Defendant Tuolumne 22 County’s favor on the Fifth Cause of Action in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and 23 ordered Plaintiffs Hope Magee and Paul Shaw to show cause in writing why summary judgment 24 on that claim should not be granted in favor of Defendant Stanislaus County as well. Doc. No. 84. 25 Plaintiffs have not filed a response to that order and the deadline for doing so has passed. 26 As set forth below, the Court will grant summary judgment in Stanislaus County’s favor on 27 the Fifth Cause of Action in the FAC for the reasons the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Tuolumne County on the Fifth Cause of Action. The Court will also close this case since 1 there are no other claims remaining. 2 BACKGROUND 3 Jacorey Shaw1 was an inmate at the Sierra Conservation Center (“SCC”), a correctional 4 facility operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Doc. 5 No. 33 ¶ 15. He died in custody on September 6, 2018 while participating in a firefighter training 6 session offered by the SCC and conducted by Dennis Jordan-Curasi. Id. ¶ 16. 7 Plaintiffs filed this action in the United States District Court for the Central District of 8 California on September 11, 2019. Doc. No. 1. It was transferred to this Court on October 28, 9 2019. Doc. Nos. 1, 14. On July 7, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the FAC (which remains the operative 10 complaint) alleging claims against Mr. Jordan-Curasi for failure to protect, denial of medical care 11 and substantive due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and for negligent wrongful death 12 under California law. Doc. No. 33 ¶¶ 21-49, 50-54. The FAC also alleges, as the Fifth Cause of 13 Action, a claim against Mr. Jordan-Curasi, Tuolumne County and Stanislaus County for negligent 14 mishandling of Mr. Shaw’s remains. Id. ¶¶ 55-57. 15 On January 20, 2022, the Court dismissed Mr. Jordan-Curasi as a defendant with prejudice, 16 pursuant to stipulation. Doc. No. 83. Following that dismissal, all that remained of this action was 17 the Fifth Cause of Action against Tuolumne County and Stanislaus County (together, the “County 18 Defendants”). See Doc. No. 33 at 14:14-15:8. 19 Tuolumne County filed a motion for summary judgment on the Fifth Cause of Action. 20 Doc. No. 59. Stanislaus County filed a statement of non-opposition to Tuolumne County’s motion 21 but did not file a summary judgment motion of its own. Doc. No. 60. On March 28, 2022, the 22 Court issued an order granting summary judgment in Tuolumne County’s favor and giving 23 Plaintiffs 21 days to show cause in writing why summary judgment should not be granted in favor 24 of Stanislaus County as well. Doc. No. 84. Plaintiffs have not filed a response to that order and the 25 deadline to do so has passed. 26 // 27 1 Jacorey Shaw is referred to herein as “Mr. Shaw.” His father, Paul Shaw, is referred to, in some instances, as “Mr. 1 // 2 DISCUSSION 3 Negligent mishandling of human remains is not an independent tort under California law. 4 Christensen v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.3d 868, 884 (1992). The Court therefore construes 5 Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action as a negligence claim. Id. “To raise a prima facie claim of 6 negligence in California law, a plaintiff must prove: 1) the existence of a duty to exercise due care; 7 2) a breach of that duty; 3) causation; and 4) damage.” Johnson v. PNC Mortg., 2016 WL 861089, 8 at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2016) (citing Merrill v. Navegear, Inc., 26 Cal.4th 465, 500 (2001)). 9 Plaintiffs bring the Fifth Cause of Action against Stanislaus County pursuant to Section 10 815.2, subdivision (a), and Section 820, subdivision (a), of the California Government Code.2 See 11 Doc. No. 33 at 14:20-24. Subdivision (a) of Section 815.2 provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] 12 public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the 13 public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this 14 section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative.” 15 Cal. Gov. Code § 815.2, subd. (a). And subdivision (a) of Section 820 states, in pertinent part, that 16 “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute …, a public employee is liable for injury caused by his 17 act or omission to the same extent as a private person.” Id. § 820, subd. (a). 18 As relevant here, the crux of Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action is that personnel employed 19 by Stanislaus County “negligently caused, and/or failed to prevent, the severe decomposition of 20 [Mr. Shaw’s] remains, which resulted in [Mr. Shaw’s] remains being in a gruesome, rancid, and 21 severely decomposed position, which caused Plaintiffs severe emotional distress upon the 22 discovery of [Mr. Shaw’s] remains.” Doc. No. 33 at 15:3-8. 23 In deciding Tuolumne County’s summary judgment motion, the Court found that Plaintiffs 24 had failed to set forth evidence showing that Mr. Shaw’s remains decomposed—or were 25 improperly cared for—while in the custody of Tuolumne County or Stanislaus County, after the 26

27 2 Section 815, subdivision (a), of the California Government Code states that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute … [a] public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public 1 burden had shifted to them to do so. See Doc. No. 84 at 6:24-10:26. Specifically, the Court found 2 |that uncontradicted evidence showed that Mr. Shaw’s remains were refrigerated while in the 3 | possession of both Tuolumne County and Stanislaus County, id. at 7:7-8:1, and that neither the 4 Stanislaus doctor who autopsied Mr. Shaw’s remains nor the Tuolumne County sheriff deputy 5 | who delivered Mr. Shaw’s remains to Stanislaus County for autopsy saw indication of 6 decomposition. Id. at 7:15-21, 8:2-6. Further, the Court found that the length of the trip from 7 |Stanislaus County to Los Angeles, a lack of evidence as to how Mr. Shaw’s remains were 8 | transported to Los Angeles, and passage of time precluded a reasonable jury from drawing 9 |inferences as to the treatment or condition of Mr. Shaw’s remains while in the care of the County 10 | Defendants based on the state of Mr. Shaw’s remains when later viewed by Mr. Shaw’s father at 11 |Solomon’s Mortuary. Id. at 10:27-11:13. 12 At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to produce evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to 13 | find that Mr. Shaw’s remains were neglected (or otherwise maltreated) prior to the time Stanislaus 14 | County ceased to have custody of them. See Doc. No. 84 at 11:14-17. This precludes finding 15 Stanislaus County liable for negligence. The Court will therefore award summary judgment in 16 | Stanislaus County’s favor on the Fifth Cause of Action. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Nissan Fire & 17 | Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2000). 18 ORDER 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Summary judgment is GRANTED in Defendant Stanislaus County’s favor on the Fifth 21 Cause of Action in the First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 33); 22 2. The Clerk of Court is respectfully DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 0s ste hh Dated: _ June 17, 2022 : 26 — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28