Greer v. County of San Diego

Case No. 19cv378-JO-DEB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2023) · United States District Court for the Southern District of California · March 1, 2023 · No. 19cv378-JO-DEB

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied the County of San Diego and supervisory defendants’ motions for summary judgment in Frankie Greer’s action arising from injuries sustained after a seizure and fall from a jail bunk. The order addresses claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, negligence, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. It also overrules or denies evidentiary objections concerning county critical-incident records and a county grand jury report.

Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Decision date
March 1, 2023
Docket number
19cv378-JO-DEB
Disposition
other

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact on the County's Monell liability for failure to train, supervise, or discipline jail employees.
  2. Whether the evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact on the supervisory defendants' direct § 1983 liability for culpable inaction in training, supervision, or discipline.
  3. Whether the supervisory defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
  4. Whether the County was entitled to summary judgment on Greer's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims based on notice, intentional discrimination, disability status, and reasonable accommodation.
  5. Whether the County was entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claim based on exhaustion and California governmental immunity.
  6. Whether the County and supervisory defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act claims.
  7. Whether the CIRB records and San Diego County Grand Jury Report were authenticated and admissible under hearsay exceptions.

Holdings

  1. Summary judgment was denied because the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find that the County was deliberately indifferent to the need to train, supervise, or discipline jail staff regarding follow-up treatment, communication of medical needs, lower-bunk assignments, and emergency response, and that these deficiencies were a moving force behind Greer's injuries.
  2. Summary judgment was denied on the supervisory defendants' direct § 1983 claims because the evidence permitted a jury to find that Gore, Joshua, and Lee personally knew of repeated failures in medical follow-up and communication, had authority over the relevant training and policies, failed to act, and caused or contributed to Greer's injury.
  3. The supervisory defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary-judgment stage because clearly established law put reasonable officials on notice that failing to address known subordinate violations involving necessary medication, medically required lower-bunk placement, and emergency medical response could violate constitutional rights.
  4. Summary judgment was denied on the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims because a jury could find that the County knew of Greer's epilepsy, failed to provide a reasonable lower-bunk accommodation, and acted with the deliberate indifference required for damages.
  5. Summary judgment was denied on the County's negligence claim because Greer's Government Claims Act submission was sufficient and California Government Code § 845.6 creates an exception to the public-entity immunity otherwise provided by § 844.6 for failure to summon immediate medical care.
  6. Summary judgment was denied on the Bane Act claims because the County could be vicariously liable if the officer defendants remained liable, and the court found that supervisory conduct may support a Bane Act claim.
  7. The CIRB records and San Diego County Grand Jury Report were admissible for purposes of summary judgment because the CIRB records were sufficiently authenticated through defendants' possession and production and qualified under public-records and business-records exceptions, while the Grand Jury Report was a self-authenticating official publication and qualified under the public-records exception.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…