United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT [DOC. NO. 8.]
MARILYN L. HUFF, DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
September 13, 2019, Colleen Garot (“Plaintiff”)
filed a Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”)
naming the County of San Diego (the “County” or
“Defendant”) and Does 1-20 (the “Defendant
Does”) as Defendants. (Doc. No. 7.) On September 27,
2019, Defendant County of San Diego filed a motion to dismiss
the SAC. (Doc. No. 8.) On October 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed
an opposition. (Doc. No. 9.) On October 28, 2019, Defendant
filed a reply. (Doc. No. 10.) On October 29, 2019, the Court
determined the motion was fit for resolution without oral
argument and submitted the motion on the papers. (Doc. No.
following facts are taken from the allegations in
Plaintiff's complaint. This lawsuit is brought on behalf
of Colleen Garot by Thomas Rainey as her court appointed
conservator. (Doc. No. 7 ¶ 5.) Plaintiff Garot bring
claims against the County of San Diego (“the
County”); Sheriff William D. Gore; and twenty Doe
defendants employed by the County of San Diego.
asserts five causes of action for: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Deliberate Indifference to a Substantial Risk of Harm to
Health; (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Liability for
Unconstitutional Custom, Practice, or Police; (3)
Professional Negligence under California Government Code
§ 844.6(d); (4) Failure to Summon Medical Care under
California Government Code § 845.6; and (5) negligence
under California law.
April 13, 2018, Sheriff's deputies employed by the County
were dispatched to Colleen Garot's residence. (Doc. No. 7
¶ 10.) Upon arrival, the deputies found Plaintiff with
“facial and head injuries, including a black left eye
and bruising, abrasions” on her forehead. (Id.
¶ 11.) The deputies discovered that Ms. Garot had an
outstanding warrant for her arrest. (Id. ¶ 10.)
Deputies arrested Ms. Garot and transported her to the county
jail. (Id. ¶ 12.) A picture of Ms. Garot taken
at the time of her booking into the county jail shows her
with a black eye and bruising on her forehead. (Id.)
arrival at the county jail Ms. Garot was given a standard
medical screening. (Id. ¶ 14.) Twelve hours
later, Ms. Garot was seen by another County employee,
“who noted the bruising around Ms. Garot's left eye
and on her forehead.” (Id. ¶ 14.)
next morning, April 14, 2018, at about 7:00 a.m. Ms. Garot
was evaluated by another County employee and given an ice
pack for her black eye. (Id. ¶ 18.) Later that
day, Ms. Garot was again seen by another unnamed County
employee. (Id. ¶ 19.)
following day, April 15, 2018, Ms. Garot was placed in a
safety cell and scheduled to see a psychologist.
(Id. ¶ 20.) At 5:00 p.m. that day, a
psychologist saw Ms. Garot and noted that she was “low
risk” and should be seen again the following day.
(Id. ¶ 21.)
following morning, April 16, 2018, Ms. Garot was observed
“walking around her cell naked” and attempting to
“climb the wall.” (Id. ¶ 23.) Later
that morning, around 11:20 a.m., a county employee found Ms.
Garot in her cell “laying on her back with foamy like
saliva coming out from her mouth.” (Id. ¶
24.) At that point, paramedics were called, and Ms. Garot was
transported to the emergency room at Sharp Memorial Hospital
where she was diagnosed with a left basilar skull fracture,
acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, encephalopathy after
traumatic brain injury, a subdural hematoma, and seizure.
(Id. ¶ 25.)
motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and
allows a court to dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff has
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
See Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240,
1241 (9th Cir. 2011). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)
requires that a pleading stating a claim for relief
containing “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The
function of this pleading requirement is to “give the
defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
complaint will survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss if
it contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“A pleading that offers ‘labels and
conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.' ”
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
“Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders
‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further
factual enhancement.'” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Accordingly, dismissal
for failure to state a claim is proper where the claim
“lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to
support a cognizable legal theory.” Mendiondo v.
Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir.
reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a district court
must accept as true all facts alleged in the complaint, and
draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the claimant.
See Retail Prop. Trust v. United Bhd. of Carpenters &
Joiners of Am., 768 F.3d 938, 945 (9th Cir. 2014). But,
a court need not accept “legal conclusions” as
true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).