Gordon v. County of Orange, No. 19-56032 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
After Mathew Gordon died within 30 hours of being admitted as a pretrial detainee, his mother filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging claims of inadequate medical care under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a previous appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that inadequate medical care claims brought by pretrial detainees require a showing of objective, not subjective, deliberate indifference (Gordon I). The district court, on remand, granted summary judgment for the individual defendants based on qualified immunity and for the entity defendant on the ground that plaintiff could not establish a custom or practice sufficient under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
The Ninth Circuit affirmed as to plaintiff's Monell claim and individual defendants Deputy Robert Denney, Nurse Brianna Garcia, and Sergeant Brian Tunque. However, the panel reversed and remanded as to individual defendant Nurse Debbie Finley. In regard to Finley and Denney, the panel concluded that the district court committed legal error by using a subjective standard in analyzing the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test. Furthermore, in regard to Finely, the panel concluded that summary judgment was not proper because the available law at the time of the incident clearly established Gordon's constitutional rights to proper medical screening to ensure the medically appropriate protocol was initiated. However, in regards to Denney, the panel concluded that although it now holds that Gordon had a constitutional right to direct-view safety checks, that right was not clearly established at the time of the incident.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment in favor of jail officials in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that plaintiff’s son, Matthew Gordon, received inadequate medical care under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment after he was admitted as a pretrial detainee to the Orange County Central Men’s Jail. In Gordon’s previous appeal, this Court held that inadequate medical care claims brought by pretrial detainees require a showing of objective, not subjective, deliberate indifference. See Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124–25 (9th Cir. 2018). Following remand, the district court allowed additional expert discovery and ultimately granted summary judgment for the individual defendants on the basis of qualified immunity and for the entity defendant on the ground that the plaintiff could not * The Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. GORDON V. COUNTY OF ORANGE 3 establish a custom or practice sufficient under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). The panel affirmed as to plaintiff’s Monell claim, holding that the record lacked evidence of any other event involving similar conduct or constitutional violations and plaintiff’s reference to subsequent changes to operating procedures was insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a custom. The panel also affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to individual defendants Nurse Garcia and Sergeant Tunque because plaintiff failed to articulate any basis for an appeal. With respect to defendants Nurse Finley and Deputy Robert Denney, the panel held that the district court committed legal error by using a subjective standard in analyzing the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test. Further, as to Nurse Finley, summary judgment was not proper because the available law at the time of the incident clearly established Matthew Gordon’s constitutional rights to proper medical screening to ensure medically appropriate protocol was initiated. Given that the County instituted two screening forms to ensure the initiation of a medically appropriate protocol, the panel remanded the case for a factual analysis of the remaining prong of the qualified immunity test. As to Deputy Denney, the panel stated that it was not aware of any precedent expressly recognizing a detainee’s right to direct-view safety checks sufficient to determine whether the detainee’s presentation indicated the need for medical treatment. Accordingly, Deputy Denney was entitled to qualified immunity because the due process right to an adequate safety check for pretrial detainees was not clearly established at the time of the incident. The panel 4 GORDON V. COUNTY OF ORANGE nevertheless held that pre-trial detainees do have a right to direct-view safety checks sufficient to determine whether their presentation indicates the need for medical treatment. The panel stated that law enforcement and prison personnel should heed this warning because the recognition of this constitutional right would protect future detainees.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.