Page 3
Ninth Circuit Rejects Attempt to Add Jim McDonnell to Suit
Opinion Says Attempt to Add Former Sheriff, Who Is Current LAPD Chief, as Defendant in Suit Over Death of Inmate Fails Because Claims Against County Were Already Dismissed
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held Friday that a trial judge properly denied a request for leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add former Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell, who is now the City of Los Angeles’s chief of police, as a defendant in a lawsuit seeking damages for the death of the plaintiffs’ son while in county jail.
Noting that claims against the county seeking damages for constitutional violations were already dismissed, the court found the amendment would be futile as the same reasoning would apply to any attempt to hold him personally responsible.
In their proposed amended complaint, John Braxton Jr. and Kathy Braxton raised civil rights and negligence claims against McDonnell, asserting that he failed to implement and enforce policies and procedures to protect inmates with mental health disorders. McDonnell had not been listed as a defendant in earlier pleadings but the plaintiffs sought to add him as a substitution for a l Doe defendant.
According to the plaintiffs, their son Markese Braxton, who suffered from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, was housed at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility after being charged with an attempted carjacking on Sept. 19, 2016. He was found dead in his cell on June 6, 2018, surrounded by pills, powder, and disintegrating tablets.
The death was ruled “inconclusive” by a county medical examiner. In July 2021, District Court Judge Jesus Bernal of the Central District of California dismissed claims against the county, including those brought under the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case of Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York. The Monell case held that governmental agencies may be subject to damages for constitutional violations if the offending actions were pursuant to a formal policy.
Bernal wrote:
“While Plaintiffs generally allege a policy, pattern, or custom of failing to protect pretrial detainees with mental health issues by failing to maintain and implement policies to observe or ensure their wellbeing,…Plaintiffs fail to allege anything more than isolated incidents—Decedent’s death, and that of an unidentified inmate with mental health issues. These are not sufficient to establish a ‘widespread practice…so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage.’ ”
Amendments failed to cure the deficiency and all claims against the county were dismissed with prejudice on Nov. 4, 2021.
Motion to Amend
On April 12, 2022, Bernal denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the fourth amended complaint, seeking to add McDonnell as a substitution for a Doe defendant, saying:
“In the Proposed [amended complaint], Plaintiffs only allege one set of facts for…Mr. McDonnell….These allegations seem tailored to a Monell claim, which cannot be asserted against Mr. McDonnell. Even if the Court assumes that Plaintiffs allege individual liability under Section 1983, the allegations are insufficient to state a valid claim.”
The plaintiffs then filed another motion for leave to amend the complaint. District Court Judge Wesley L. Hsu denied the request.
In a memorandum opinion, signed by Circuit Judges Sandra S. Ikuta and Bridget Shelton Bade and Senior Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee, the court affirmed.
Ninth Circuit’s View
The panel wrote:
“We ‘consider[] five factors in assessing the propriety of leave to amend—bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.’….Amendment is futile where ‘it is clear, upon de novo review, that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.’ ”
They noted:
“In their proposed fourth amended complaint, Plaintiffs raised civil rights and negligence claims against McDonnell. The civil rights allegations focused on McDonnell’s failure to implement and enforce policies and procedures to prevent Braxton’s death. Nothing in the proposed complaint said what actions McDonnell individually took to harm Braxton.”
Futility Found
Applying the futility standard, the jurists opined:
“Allegations related to policies and procedures are improper against a Defendant in their individual capacity because they are brought pursuant to Monell….However, the district court had already dismissed the Monell claim with prejudice, so realleging it against McDonnell in his individual capacity would have been futile.”
Turning to the negligence claims, the judges wrote:
“Likewise, Plaintiffs’ common law negligence claim against McDonnell did not aver what duty McDonnell individually owed Braxton, which of his actions breached that duty, and how that breach caused Braxton’s death, and Plaintiffs fail to show how any amendment to the third amended complaint would survive a motion to dismiss….Without such allegations, Plaintiffs cannot sustain a negligence action under California law….Therefore, the district court properly held that granting leave to amend would be futile, and we affirm.”
The case is Braxton v. County of Los Angeles, 23-3345.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company