In J.K.J. v. City of San Diego, published November 15, 2021, a divided panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissal of a complaint against defendant city and officers. The defendant officers stopped a car with an expired registration. The decedent was riding in the car as a passenger. The officers questioned the decedent, who was coherent and showed no signs of distress. The officers learned there was an outstanding arrest warrant for the decedent involving a prior methamphetamine offense. They handcuffed her and put her in their vehicle. The officers searched the stopped car and found a saran-like plastic commonly used for narcotics sales. They found no drugs. Inside the police cruiser, the decedent vomited. One of the officers called for paramedics. The officers asked decedent if she was detoxing or withdrawing. The decedent replied, "No," and stated that she was sick, her stomach was turning, and that she was pregnant. One of the officers called off the paramedics. An officer asked if she ate something. She shook her head and said, "Mmm-mm." The officers began the hour-long drive to the police station. En route, the decedent told the officers she did not want to go to jail; requested water and a bathroom break; and groaned and screamed on several occasions. At one point, she screamed for help. One of the officers asked her what was going on. She remained silent for ten minutes. The officers stopped the car to check on her. An officer opened the door and told her she needed to stay awake. When she screamed she needed help, the officers told her to knock it off and that she was fine. On arrival (about three minutes after that incident), decedent was lying face down across the backseat. She screamed and breathed rapidly. One of the officers told her to stop hyperventilating. The officers removed the decedent from the cruiser to the pavement, and fingerprinted her as she lay on her side. The officers asked if she wanted water, and she requested water. They returned her to the cruiser. Eleven minutes later, decedent had fallen unconscious. The officers immediately removed her from the car, called paramedics, and performed CPR. Decedent fell into a coma and died. The plaintiff, decedent's child, alleged decedent died from an overdose. The plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for denial of medical care under the Fourth Amendment, denial of due process, and Monell liability for the city. The district court granted the motion, ruling that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim for denial of medical care; that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity; and that the complaint failed to state a Monell claim against the city.
The panel majority agreed with this rulings. It affirmed the district court's decision to consider a publicly-available video of the incident that was incorporated into the complaint by reference. Where the complaint makes conclusory allegations contracted by a document incorporated by reference into the complaint, the court may decline to accept the conclusory allegations as true. The district court properly limited its consideration of the video according to this rule. The district court properly dismissed the Monell action. Although the complaint alleged failure to train, it failed to allege facts showing a failure to train caused this incident. Instead, the complaint alleged that the officers departed from their training. For the defendant officers, the appellate court ruled that they were entitled to qualified immunity on both prongs. On the first prong, the facts alleged in the complaint failed to show the objective reasonableness that would be necessary to state a claim for denial of medical care under either the Fourteenth Amendment (due process) or the Fourth Amendment (excessive force). The officers' actions--including taking the arrestee's representations about her status at face value--were objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Arguments that the officers should have concluded the decedent had ingested drugs, and that she was not pregnant, were merely exercises of 20-20 hindsight. The test is whether the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances. On the second prong, the plaintiff was unable to identify any precedent that clearly established under similar circumstances that the officers' actions violated the requirement to provide a detainee or arrestee with medical care.
A judge, dissenting in part, opined that the complaint stated a plausible case against at least one of the officers for failing to take action in light of an acute medical emergency.