Page 1
Ninth Circuit Restores Suit Over Death of Incarcerated Woman’s Newborn Baby
Orange County Jail Officials Blamed for Delay in Taking Pretrial Detainee to Hospital
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday ordered reinstatement of an action by a mentally ill homeless woman who sued Orange County under 42 U.S.C. 1983 based on an alleged deliberate indifference to her medical needs when she was about to give birth by delaying unduly in transporting from jail, where she was a pretrial detainee, to a hospital.
The infant was delivered at the hospital but died there.
James V. Selna, then a judge (now senior judge) of the District Court for the Central District of California, dismissed her action as time-barred. The delivery took place in March 2016 and the action was brought by Sandra Quinones (as part of a class action based on jail conditions in the county) in September 2019.
According to her complaint, she was made to wait in her cell for two hours after her water broke before being taken to the hospital, with those transporting her stopping along the way at a Starbucks coffee house, remaining another two hours.
Two-Judge Opinion
Reversal came in a memorandum opinion signed by Judge Ryan D. Nelson and Senior Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld. Judge Lawrence VanDyke authored a concurring opinion.
The majority noted that under California Code of Civil Procedure §352, a civil rights action under §1983 is tolled when the plaintiff is “lacking the legal capacity to make decisions.” They declared that “Quinones’s allegations that she suffers from several different conditions ‘as a result of the incident,’ suffice to allege tolling over the entire period.”
Her allegations “that she was mentally impaired and that she thought that someone else was controlling her mind are enough to state a plausible claim” of a lack of capacity, the judges added.
Competent to Plead
At oral argument on Oct. 20, Kleinfeld expressed concern that she had been found by a judge to be competent to enter a plea to the offense with which she was charged but is now saying she was mentally incompetent.
“That really bothers me,” he said.
However, yesterday’s opinion says:
“Quinones’s guilty plea is not an obstacle at this stage of the proceedings. The County argues that Quinones is legally barred from asserting incapacity because she could not lack capacity to make decisions while also interacting with appointed criminal counsel and intelligently and voluntarily waiving her rights to a jury trial and appeal. But the County fails to discuss some of the legal doctrines that might bar her claim (issue preclusion and claim preclusion, under California law), and the doctrines it does discuss either fail (blatant contradiction…) or require additional fact-finding (judicial estoppel).”
The judges added:
“If Quinones was incapacitated at the time of her guilty plea, then her statement that she was capable was an honest mistake, and judicial estoppel might not apply.”
Woman Blamed
At oral argument, attorney Richard Herman argued for reversal. He said that jail officials were “telling this poor incarcerated woman, ‘Your baby died and if you do anything, we’ll prosecute you for murder.’ ”
VanDyke, concurring in the judgment, wrote:
“I agree with the majority’s decision to remand this case to the district court but I would do so for a different reason. Namely, because in my view the district court should have addressed plaintiffs equitable estoppel argument that “Ms. Quinones was threatened by defendant employees not to bring an action regarding their conduct” and a “defendant is not entitled to benefit from the effects of its own ... outrageous acts.” This was an independent argument to excuse plaintiff s late filing under California law and should have been considered before dismissing her lawsuit. I believe the district court should address that argument on remand, but I express no view on its merits.”
The case is Quinones v. County of Orange, 20-56177.
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company