Hernandez v. County of Fresno ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VERONICA HERNANDEZ, et al., No. 1:22-cv-01145-ADA-EPG 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL 13 v. (ECF Nos. 31, 37) 14 COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Veronica Hernandez, individually, and as the guardian ad litem for Plaintiffs R.H. 19 and M.H. (“Plaintiffs”), brings this lawsuit alleging that Defendants failed to prevent and end abuse 20 that Plaintiffs suffered while in foster care. 21 Upon referral, the assigned Magistrate Judge entered findings and recommendations on 22 May 1, 2023, recommending that Defendant County of Fresno’s motion to dismiss be denied. (ECF 23 No. 37.) On May 15, 2023, Defendant filed objections, and on May 31, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a 24 response to Defendant’s objections. (ECF Nos. 38, 39.) 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 26 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 27 including Defendant’s objections and Plaintiff’s response, the Court finds the findings and 28 recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 1 In its objections, Defendant County of Fresno (“County”) argues that Plaintiff’s second 2 cause of action based on policy or custom of inadequate training should be dismissed. (ECF No. 3 38 at 2.) County argues that this case is most analogous to Estate of Mendez v. City of Ceres, 390 4 F. Supp. 3d 1189, 1207 (2019). The Court finds otherwise. Estate of Mendez, which involved an 5 action brought by a family and estate of the minor who was fatally shot by a police officer, is 6 factually distinguishable from the instant case. Id. at 1197. This case concerns Plaintiffs who were 7 dependents entrusted to County and were placed with a foster parent who used his role to gain 8 access to and sexually assault Plaintiffs, who were minors at the time. (ECF No. 25 at ¶ 3.) Further, 9 contrary to County’s interpretation, Estate of Mendez held that because the alleged prior instances 10 were similar to the circumstances of the minor’s shooting, and the instances constituted a pattern 11 of violations rather than isolated incidents to which policymakers failed to respond or inadequately 12 responded, under the totality of the allegations, the plaintiffs’ claim for Monell liability under 13 failure to train would be sufficient at the motion to dismiss stage. Estate of Mendez, 390 F. Supp. 14 3d at 1208. 15 Here, Plaintiffs offer five cases, demonstrating the County’s allegedly unconstitutional 16 customs, practices, and policies in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 25 at 13-14.) 17 For example, in L.O. v. County of Fresno, Fresno Sup. Ct. Case No. 21CECG00289, the plaintiff 18 was allegedly placed in a foster home with a foster parent with a known history of criminal sexual 19 misconduct, and the defendants, including the County, allegedly failed to conduct an adequate 20 background check, to investigate potential abuse, and to adequately train employees, which resulted 21 in the abuse of the plaintiff from November 2000 to April 2001. Another example in A.A. v. County 22 of Fresno, Fresno Sup. Ct. Case No. 21CECG00432, involves a plaintiff that was allegedly placed 23 from 2005 to 2016 with a foster parent who repeatedly sexually abused the plaintiff, but the 24 defendants, including the County, failed to investigate. The three other cases allege prior instances 25 that are similar to the circumstances of this action. (Id.) Because this appears to be a pattern of 26 violations rather than isolated incidents which the County has failed to respond to, the Court finds 27 that Plaintiff’s claim for Monell liability sufficiently withstands the County’s motion to dismiss. 28 Nonetheless, the County argues that the large time gaps between Plaintiffs’ alleged cases 1 fail to indicate a pattern of violations to support a Monell claim. In Estate of Sanchez, a five-year 2 gap between cases followed by a three-year gap presented a deficiency because it suggested that 3 there was only one incident in eight years’ time. Estate of Mendez¸ 390 F. Supp. 3d at 1209. 4 However, in the FAC, Plaintiffs allege that they were sexually assaulted, molested, and raped on a 5 daily basis while housed through foster care from 2014 and 2016. (ECF No. 25 at ¶¶ 18-20.) Not 6 until later in 2016 were Plaintiffs removed from the foster home. (Id. at ¶ 26.) Plaintiffs’ cases, 7 which each involved foster parents’ sexual abuse towards the plaintiffs, spanned from 2000 to 2001 8 (L.O. v. County of Fresno), 2000 to 2004 (Y.V. v. County of Fresno), 2003 to 2005 (Briseno v. 9 County of Fresno), 2006 to 2009 (A.D. v. County of Fresno), and 2005 to 2016 (A.A. v. County of 10 Fresno). (Id. at ¶ 46.) There is no gap in timing between the cases, so the temporal relation and 11 consistency over the years support Plaintiffs’ Monell claim. 12 Lastly, the County argues that Plaintiffs fail to allege facts concerning subsequent action or 13 inaction by the County in the wake of Plaintiffs alleged incidents. (ECF No. 30 at 8.) In the FAC, 14 Plaintiffs allege that the County maintained the policy, practice, or custom of “[i]nadequately 15 supervising and disciplining employees whom the County knew had violated foster children’s 16 constitutional rights as set forth above.” (ECF No. 25 at ¶ 41.) Plaintiffs allege that the County 17 “did not investigate or discipline” named social workers for “for failing to protect [Plaintiffs] from 18 [foster parent] and failing to ensure Plaintiffs’ reasonable safety and minimally adequate care.” (Id. 19 at ¶ 45.) Therefore, the Court finds that because the County failed to take any steps to reprimand 20 or otherwise act in response to the egregious conduct alleged by Plaintiffs, a policy may be inferred 21 from Defendant’s conduct. See Estate of Mendez, 390 F. Supp. 3d at 1211. Overall, the Court 22 finds the County’s objections unavailing and fully adopts the Magistrate Judge’s findings and 23 recommendations. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 1, 2023, (ECF No. 37), are 3 ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. Defendant County of Fresno’s motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 31), is denied; and 5 3. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 6 7 g | IT ISSO ORDERED. 9 Dated: _ September 12, 2023 10 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28