From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

B.R. v. Cnty. of Santa Clara

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 6, 2021
Case No. 19-cv-04317-VC (N.D. Cal. May. 6, 2021)

Opinion

Case No. 19-cv-04317-VC

05-06-2021

B.R., A MINOR, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al., Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 52

The motion for summary judgment as to the claims for municipal liability against the County and Garnette is granted. The plaintiff primarily asserts a failure to train theory, but the record contains no evidence about the contents of the training received by staff at the facility, and from the discussion at the hearing it appears that plaintiff's counsel did not conduct discovery on this. The plaintiff also asserts that the discrepancies between official incident reports written by staff and what he describes having done to him reflect a policy or custom of failing to investigate incidents where detainees suffer harm at the hands of staff, but the record contains no evidence about the failure to investigate other similar incidents, and counsel apparently conducted no discovery on this either. Nor does anything in the record support a conclusion that a final policymaker was involved in or ratified this incident. Thus, nothing in the record supports any potential theory of municipal liability. See Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776, 802-03 (9th Cir. 2018).

To be sure, the allegations in the complaint regarding municipal liability seem plausible, but that is not enough at summary judgment. From the hearing, it appears counsel for the plaintiff may have held the view that the burden was on the defendants to come forward with evidence refuting the complaint's allegations of municipal liability, but the obligation was on the plaintiff to present some evidence in support of those allegations. Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) ("An issue of material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party.")

The defendants' unopposed motion for summary judgment on the Bane Act claim is also granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 6, 2021

/s/_________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge


Summaries of

B.R. v. Cnty. of Santa Clara

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 6, 2021
Case No. 19-cv-04317-VC (N.D. Cal. May. 6, 2021)
Case details for

B.R. v. Cnty. of Santa Clara

Case Details

Full title:B.R., A MINOR, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: May 6, 2021

Citations

Case No. 19-cv-04317-VC (N.D. Cal. May. 6, 2021)