H.L., D.L.1, Cleavotta Morgan, and David Morgan v. County of Los Angeles, Kazeem Abass, Nchegem Orji, Salma Zubair

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California partially grants defendants’ motion to dismiss claims arising from Daejon Morgan’s overdose death while in custody at Twin Towers Correctional Facility. The court allows claims concerning deliberate indifference to dangerous jail conditions and certain Monell theories involving failure to prevent drug proliferation, but dismisses or limits claims concerning medical care, medical-staff training, and several alleged municipal policies.

Holdings

1. The complaint plausibly alleged that Doe defendants knew or should have known of dangerous drug proliferation in the County jail system, failed to take reasonable measures such as screening deputies or using body scanners, and thereby caused Morgan's overdose. The motion to dismiss Count 1 was denied.
2. The complaint did not plausibly allege that Abass, Orji, or Zubair acted with deliberate indifference to Morgan's medical needs. Count 2 was dismissed as to Abass and Zubair without leave to amend and as to Orji with leave to amend.
3. The complaint plausibly alleged a Monell failure-to-train claim based on the County's alleged failure to train jail employees to prevent drug proliferation, but did not plausibly allege a failure to train medical staff to treat drug abuse. The latter theory was dismissed without leave to amend; the drug-proliferation theory survived.
4. Most of the alleged County policies, customs, and practices were insufficiently pleaded, but the alleged policy of routinely failing to train correctional staff to prevent drugs from being smuggled into jail facilities plausibly stated a Monell claim and survived dismissal.
5. The complaint failed to state a ratification claim. The claim against the County was dismissed with leave to amend, while the claim against Doe defendants was dismissed without leave to amend.
6. The complaint plausibly alleged a familial-relations claim against Doe defendants based on their alleged deliberate indifference to the proliferation of dangerous drugs, but did not plausibly allege such a claim against Abass, Orji, or Zubair. The claim was dismissed against Orji with leave to amend and against Abass and Zubair without leave to amend.
7. California Government Code section 815(a) barred plaintiffs' direct common-law negligence claim against the County absent statutory authorization. Count 7 was dismissed without leave to amend as to the County but survived against Doe defendants.
8. The complaint failed to state a Bane Act claim because it did not plausibly allege that defendants specifically intended, through reckless disregard or otherwise, to interfere with Morgan's constitutional rights. The claim was dismissed against Doe defendants and Orji with leave to amend and against Abass and Zubair without leave to amend.
9. The motion to dismiss Count 9 was denied. Sections 815(a) and 844.6 did not foreclose a section 845.6 claim because section 845.6 creates an exception for failure to summon medical care when an employee acts within the scope of employment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged deliberate indifference to dangerous conditions of confinement based on the alleged proliferation and smuggling of dangerous drugs in County jails.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged deliberate indifference to Morgan's medical needs against the individual medical defendants.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged Monell liability against the County for failure to train, unconstitutional policies or customs, and ratification.
4. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged a Fourteenth Amendment claim for interference with familial relations.
5. Whether California law barred the negligence claim against the County.
6. Whether the complaint stated a claim under the California Bane Act.
7. Whether California Government Code section 845.6 permitted the failure-to-summon-medical-care claim against the defendants and the County.
8. Whether the challenged claims should be dismissed with or without leave to amend.

Disposition

other