Rodriguez v. Cache Cnty. Corp.

NANCY RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. CACHE COUNTY CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-115

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

May 4, 2021

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Judge Clark Waddoups

Before the court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Motion") filed by defendants Cache County Corporation and Cache County Sheriff's Office (the "County") (ECF No. 55). In her Amended Complaint, plaintiff Nancy Rodriguez ("Plaintiff") asserts that the County is liable, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the "1983 Claim") and a wrongful death theory (the "Wrongful Death Claim"), for the death by suicide of her husband, Jose Mena ("Mr. Mena") seventeen days after he was placed in the Cache County Jail. The County's Motion seeks summary judgment on both of those claims. The Motion has been fully briefed, and the court heard argument on the same at an April 30, 2021 hearing. The County's Motion is GRANTED.

FACTS

1. Mr. Mena was arrested on September 3, 2016, by officers of the Logan City Police Department. (See ECF No. 55-2).

2. Mr. Mena was then transported to the Cache County Jail (the "CCJ") by Logan City Police Department officers Cody Olsen and Nathan Argyle (the "Logan City Transporting Officers"). (Id.).

3. When Mr. Mena arrived at the CCJ, CCJ Deputy Colton Peterson ("Deputy Peterson") completed his initial intake process. (Id.).

4. During the initial intake process, Deputy Peterson completed an intake sheet for Mr. Mena (the "Intake Sheet"). (See id.; see also ECF No. 55-3 at 17:8-24).

5. In completing the Intake Sheet, Deputy Peterson asked Mr. Mena a series of questions, including whether he was suicidal. (See ECF No. 55-2; ECF No. 55-3 at 17:15-24, 19:5-19, 65:8-22). Mr. Mena reported that he was not. (See ECF No. 55-2).

6. The Logan City Transporting Officers were present while Deputy Peterson completed the Intake Sheet. (See ECF No. 55-3 at 29:5-15, 70:17-24). Although Deputy Peterson does not recall his specific interview of Mr. Mena, it was his general practice to ask the officers who had transported an inmate to the CCJ how the inmate was and whether they had anything to add. (See id. at 27:23-28:10, 32:25-33:4, 39:7-14; 61:6). Any information that was provided by the transporting officers is written down on the intake sheet. (See id. at 31:11-14).

7. Deputy Peterson generally relies on the transporting officers to share any information that they have regarding an inmate or to add any information to the answers that are being provided by the inmate. (See e.g., id. at 29:5-11).

8. Deputy Peterson does not recall whether he asked the Logan City Transporting Officers any specific questions during Mr. Mena's initial intake. (See id. at 28:12-14, 39:15-18).

9. Deputy Peterson was not aware, at the time that he conducted Mr. Mena's initial intake, that Mr. Mena was suicidal. (See id. at 44:10-16). He does not recall whether the Logan City Transporting Officers represented, or informed him, that Mr. Mena presented a risk of self-harm. (See id. at 58:12-59:19). But he testified that had he received any such information, he would have "erred on the side of caution" and included it on the Intake Sheet. (Id. at 59:20-24).

10. Nothing particular about Mr. Mena or his initial intake stands out to Deputy Peterson. (Id. at 61:6).

11. After Deputy Peterson completed the initial intake of Mr. Mena, Mr. Mena's booking was handled by Deputy Cody Atwood of the CCJ ("Deputy Atwood"). (See ECF No. 55-9 at 29:6-14). Deputy Atwood also performed, "to an extent" a medical screening on Mr. Mena. (Id. at 34:13-25).

12. In completing Mr. Mena's booking, Deputy Atwood had received, and relied upon, the Intake Sheet that Deputy Peterson had completed. (Id. at 30:17-31:4).

13. By the time Deputy Atwood handled Mr. Mena's booking, the Logan City Police Department officers who transported Mr. Mena had already left the CCJ. (See id. at 29:2-14).

14. Deputy Atwood had a conversation with Mr. Mena during his booking and found that he "seemed fairly happy for his circumstances." (See id. at 26:22-27:9). Deputy Atwood did not identify from Mr. Mena any depression, fatalistic comments, anxiety or fear, anger, or information concerning serious personal problems. (See id. at 45:6-25). Deputy Atwood was not aware that during Mr. Mena's booking that his family had indicated to officers of the Logan City Police Department that Mr. Mena had said he wanted to kill himself. (Id. at 46:1-5).

15. Specifically, during booking, Deputy Atwood asked Mr. Mena, among other things: "Are you currently or have you ever experienced depression or mood swings?"; "Have you ever attempted suicide or self-mutilation?" and "Are you going to harm yourself while you are here?" Mr. Mena answered all three questions in the negative. (See ECF No. 55-6 at 4).

16. Seventeen days after Mr. Mena was booked into the CCJ, on September 20, 2016, at approximately 11:00 p.m., CCJ Deputy Kylee Johnson found Mr. Mena hanging by his neck from a sheet attached to the upper bunk of his cell. (See ECF No. 55-15 at 44:3-47:2).

17. CCJ deputies provided medical care to Mr. Mena until an emergency medical crew arrived but were unable to revive him. He was declared deceased by medical staff on September 20, 2016. (See ECF No. 55-18).

18. Mr. Mena's brother, Francisco Mena, spoke with Mr. Mena on the phone approximately three times during the seventeen days that he was incarcerated at CCJ. (See ECF No 55-20 at 12:24-16:13). Although Francisco "noticed right away that he was depressed, right at the first phone call," his conversations with Mr. Mena were ordinary, and he did not have any concerns that Mr. Mena was going to harm himself. (See id.).

19. Plaintiff spoke with Mr. Mena on the telephone while he was incarcerated. She testifies that he reported being depressed and that harming himself had "cross[ed] his mind" but never said that he intended to do so. (See ECF No. 55-14 at 12:14-21, 16:4-15, 25:23-26:2). She did not believe that Mr. Mena would harm himself. (Id. at 26:9-18). Plaintiff did not report any information regarding her conversation with Mr. Mena to the County. (See id. at 12:14-21, 24:20-25:19, 26:9-18).

20. None of the CCJ deputies who worked in Mr. Mena's area while he was incarcerated had observed any signs that indicated that Mr. Mena was experiencing depression or was likely to harm himself. (See ECF No. 55 at 12, ¶ 56; ECF No. 64 at 15-16, ¶ 56).

21. If those deputies had any concern as to Mr. Mena's mental health or became aware that he might be a risk of self-harm, it was their practice to address the situation. (See ECF No. 55 at 13-14, ¶ 62; ECF No. 64 at 18, ¶ 62).

22. At or about the time Mr. Mena was arrested, on or about September 3, 2016, officers of the Logan City Police Department had completed an officer report regarding their interactionwith, and arrest of, Mr. Mena (the "Logan City Police Department Officer Report"). (ECF No. 64-3). The Logan City Police Department Officer Report contained the following information:

a. Mr. Mena had "obtained a hunting rifle and stated he was going to harm himself." (Id. at 5).

b. After the rifle was taken from him, Mr. Mena "grabbed a knife from the kitchen and again, stated he was going to harm himself." (Id.).

c. Plaintiff told officers that Mr. Mena had said that he "wanted to kill himself." (Id. at 6).

d. Plaintiff told officers that during an argument she had with Mr. Mena, he had grabbed a razor, and she had "feared [that] he might use [it] on himself." She also told officers that "she felt [Mr. Mena] might hurt himself because his mother had committed suicide" and that she became concerned that Mr. Mena was "going to try to harm himself" when he barricaded himself in a room. (Id. at 7).

e. A witness to the altercation informed officers that Mr. Mena said he would kill himself if Plaintiff did not come back into the house. (Id. at 14).

23. Plaintiff did not share any of the information that she provided to officers of the Logan City Police Departments to deputies at the CCJ. (See ECF No. 55-14 at 24:20-25:19).

24. It is unclear when deputies at the CCJ received a copy of the Logan City Police Department Officer Report and if any deputies at the CCJ ever read it. (See ECF No. 55-9 at 48:21-49:4, 71:24-72:9).

25. The County does not have a policy that requires deputies at the CCJ to review the probable cause statement, police report, or any other documents or reports that are related to the inmate's arrest or charges. (See ECF No. 64-1 at 92:6-10). Such review is discouraged by theCCJ, out of concern that it may prohibit deputies from "deal[ing] impartially with" the inmate. (See id. at 92:12-93:15).

26. The Logan City Transporting Officers did not communicate the information that was contained in the Logan City Police Department Officer Report to Deputy Peterson when they transported Mr. Mena to the CCJ. (See ECF No. 55-3 at 44:10-16, 58:12-59:24).

27. The County does not have a policy that requires deputies at the CCJ to ask the officers who transport inmates to CCJ about the inmates. (See ECF No. 64-1 at 87:23-88:2).

28. The CCJ has adopted a number of policies that are relevant to this matter.

29. Policy CF 30 governs "Screening: Pre-Classification" and sets forth the CCJ's "polices and procedures governing pre-classification screening" of "incoming arrestees, commitments, and other inmates booked into the jail." (See ECF No. 55-4 at ¶¶ CF30/01.01, 02.01). In relevant part, Policy CF 30:

a. Recognizes that "[a]s a general rule, CCJ booking deputies know very little about the inmates being admitted to the jail. Pre-classification screening provides a means of obtaining available information" and that "[i]nformation obtained in the pre-classification screening process can aid CCJ officials in caring for and protecting inmates' safety and security during the period from admission to formal classification." (Id. at ¶¶ CF30/02.02 A-B).

b. Recognizes that "the safe and secure...