Preview
LAW OFFICE OF STRATTON S. BARBEE
1
Stratton S. Barbee, Bar No. 231026
2 6700 Freeport Blvd., Ste. 203-A
Sacramento, CA 95822
3 (916) 684-9389
4
Attorney for Plaintiff
5 Barbara Boyle
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF PLACER
9
10
BARBARA BOYLE, ) Case No.: SCV0041807
11 )
Plaintiff, ) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
12
vs. ) COMPENSATORY AND EXEMPLARY
13 ) TORT DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY
COUNTY OF PLACER; ) TRIAL
14 DEVON BELL; CALIFORNIA FORENSIC )
MEDICAL GROUP INC.; M. KENDRICK, )
15
DIANA LAWSON; DR. DAVID DUNCAN; )
16 Does 1-10 )
)
17 Defendants. )
18
Comes now the plaintiff and complains against the above named defendants, and for a
19
cause of action alleges on information and belief that:
20
1. Plaintiff Barbara Boyle is a natural person and competent adult.
21
22 2. Plaintiff is, and was at all times mentioned herein, a resident of the State of California.
23 3. Defendant Placer County is a municipality, organized under the laws of the State of
24
California.
25
4. Defendant Devon Bell is, and at all relevant times was, a natural person and competent adult,
26
27
and the Sheriff of Placer County.
28
1
BOYLE v. PLACER COUNTY, ET. AL.: Second Amended Complaint
5. Defendant California Forensic Medical Group Incorporated (CFMG) is a corporation,
1
2 organized under the laws of California, and is registered and authorized to do business in the
3 State of California.
4
6. Defendant M. Kendrick is, and at all relevant times was, a natural person and competent
5
adult, and a registered nurse employed by CFMG.
6
7
7. Defendant Diana M. Lawson is, and at all relevant times was, a natural person and competent
8 adult, and was an employee of CFMG.
9 8. Dr. David Duncan is, and at all relevant times was, a natural person and competent adult, and
10
was a medical doctor employed by CFMG.
11
9. Does 1-10 are natural persons and competent adults whose identities are unknown to plaintiff.
12
13 At all relevant times Does 1-10 were either employees of Placer County, CFMG, or were acting
14 at the direction of, and as agents of, Placer County or CFMG.
15
10. In accordance with Government Code section 910, on or about November 7, 2017, plaintiff
16
filed a claim against the Placer County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) and its jail employees for the
17
acts discussed herein. On or about December 7, 2017, Placer County rejected plaintiff’s claim.
18
19 Equitable Tolling
20 11. On or about June 7, 2017, plaintiff filed a Civil Rights Action, pursuant to 42 United
21
States Code section 1983, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.
22
Plaintiff, who was still incarcerated at the time, and who was indigent, applied to the District
23
Court to have the initial filing fee waived. However, the Eastern District would not waive
24
25 plaintiff’s filing fee unless she submitted a certified copy of her inmate trust account (books) by
26 July 27, 2018. Plaintiff was unable to obtain a certified copy of her books because the Placer
27
County Jail staff was not familiar with how to certify said record, and as such, plaintiff’s case
28
2
BOYLE v. PLACER COUNTY, ET. AL.: Second Amended Complaint
was in jeopardy of being involuntarily dismissed. Out of desperation plaintiff’s counsel fronted
1
2 the $400.00 filing fee on behalf of plaintiff on or about July 29, 2018. However, as of October 4,
3 2019, the federal court still had not issued a summons. Plaintiff’s counsel was afraid that
4
plaintiff’s case might be involuntarily dismissed due to failure to produce the certified books
5
(which plaintiff could not procure, despite her counsel’s diligent efforts), or the filing fee, on
6
7
time. Therefore, on October 4, 2018, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her federal case, without
8 prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 41, subdivision
9 (a)(1)(A)&(B). (See Case #2:18-cv-01690) Plaintiff hereby asserts that the statute of limitations
10
was equitably tolled during the time her case was pending in federal court. (See McDonald v.
11
Antelope Valley Community College Dist. (2008) 45 Cal. 4th 88, 103; Addison v. State of
12
13 California (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 313, 315.) The following day, on October 5, 2018, plaintiff filed
14 the instant action and served it on Placer County.
15
PLAINTIFF’S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
16
12. On June 22, 2017, plaintiff Barbara Boyle was arrested and placed in the custody of the
17
PCSO. Plaintiff was housed in the Placer County Jail. Plaintiff wears contact lenses without
18
19 which her vision is severely impaired. Prior to September 22, 2017, plaintiff requested, on
20 multiple occasions, that the jail staff provide her with contact lenses, but her requests were
21
always denied or simply ignored. The staff would always give plaintiff an excuse for why they
22
could not provide her with contact lenses. Plaintiff also asked for glasses in the alternative, but
23
the staff did not provide her with glasses either.
24
25 13. On or about Friday, September 22, 2017, plaintiff began to feel a severe irritation in her
26 right eye. She feared that there was a swollen or broken capillary and infection in her right eye.
27
Plaintiff informed the Sheriff’s deputies and medical staff and was instructed to complete a
28
3
BOYLE v. PLACER COUNTY, ET. AL.: Second Amended Complaint
“kite” (a jail request for services or assistance), which she did. However, plaintiff received no
1
2 treatment.
3 14. The next day (Saturday), September 23, 2017, plaintiff told the on-duty officer that her
4
eye was in pain and that it was rapidly getting worse. Once again plaintiff was instructed to
5
write a kite. Later that day the afternoon pill call nurse happened to see plaintiff’s right eye and
6
7
stated that it was in terrible condition, and assured her that she would be placed on the Sunday
8 sick call list which would allow plaintiff to be seen by a doctor. However, nothing was done to
9 cure plaintiff that day. Plaintiff’s eye condition was rapidly getting worse, but the PCSO treated
10
her condition with no sense of urgency.
11
15. On Sunday, September 24, 2017, plaintiff was not summoned for sick call. Plaintiff
12
13 informed Deputy Wehe of her serious eye condition, but he callously responded with words to
14 the effect of, “Oh well, you’re not on the list.” Plaintiff summoned Deputy Wehe again and told
15
him that she was in pain and that a puss pocket had developed on her right eye. Deputy Wehe
16
expressed that he did not care, and that if plaintiff continued complaining he would issue her a
17
citation (write her up). Due to the severe emergency with her eye plaintiff summoned Deputy
18
19 Wehe again and pleaded with him to allow her to go to the medical clinic, but he would not assist
20 her. It was not until plaintiff told Deputy Wehe that she was having a heart problem that he
21
allowed her to go to the medical clinic. However, Deputy Wehe told plaintiff that if she
22
mentioned any other issues besides a heart problem he would issue her a citation. Wehe did not
23
send plaintiff to the medical clinic until approximately an hour and a half after plaintiff first
24
25 requested medical attention. During this time plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress and
26 unnecessary pain. Plaintiff had already been experiencing emotional distress and unnecessary
27
pain, even before Deputy Wehe refused to let her be seen for her eye.
28
4
BOYLE v. PLACER COUNTY, ET. AL.: Second Amended Complaint
16. While at the medical clinic an African-American nurse by the name of Shae Phinney
1
2 expressed serious concerns about plaintiff’s right eye. Phinney wanted to transport plaintiff to a
3 doctor but could not do so without permission from the Sheriff’s deputies in charge. Thus,
4
plaintiff was not seen by a doctor. Instead, Phinney apparently spoke with a CFMG doctor by
5
phone who instructed her to apply ointment on plaintiff’s eye and to cover it with a patch.
6
7
Plaintiff is informed and believes that this physician was Dr. David Duncan. However, the
8 person with whom Phinney spoke may have been a physician’s assistant, employed by CFMG.
9 Later that evening plaintiff visited the clinic again to seek treatment due to pus coming from her
10
right eye. Defendant Diana Lawson of CFMG denied that pus was coming from plaintiff’s eye
11
and replaced the patch that was applied to plaintiff’s eye earlier that day.
12
13 17. The next day, Monday, September 25, 2017, the jail sent plaintiff to Auburn Eye Care
14 Associates. The doctors at this clinic stated that they had never seen a patient with such a
15
terrible eye condition. They also stated that the medical professional who diagnosed plaintiff by
16
phone gave very bad orders when he told the nurse to place ointment on plaintiff’s eye and then
17
cover it. By covering the eye in such a moist environment it actually caused the infection and
18
19 the bacteria to spread much faster. These specialists told plaintiff that she would need surgery
20 and that she might lose sight in her right eye, or even lose that eye altogether.
21
18. On Tuesday, September 26, 2017, the eye specialists stated that plaintiff’s condition had
22
become so bad that they were unable to treat her. They referred plaintiff to UC Davis Medical
23
Center for immediate treatment (As Soon As Possible). However, plaintiff was not taken to UC
24
25 Davis that day as the specialists ordered. By the next day a gray film had developed over
26 plaintiff’s right eye and she had become blind in that eye. (See attached photos.) Yet, plaintiff
27
was not taken to UC Davis that day either.
28
5
BOYLE v. PLACER COUNTY, ET. AL.: Second Amended Complaint
19. Plaintiff suffered blindness in her right eye and diminished beauty due to the unsightly
1
2 gray membrane that covered that eye for numerous months.
3 I. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PLACER COUNTY, DEVON BELL, AND DOES
4
1-10, FOR VIOLATING PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL RIGHTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF 42
5
U.S.C. §1983.
6
7
20. At all relevant times Placer County, through its Sheriff Devon Bell, was responsible for
8 the health and physical wellbeing of all inmates in the custody of the PCSO. Placer County,
9 Devon Bail, and Does 1 through 10, failed to provide plaintiff with eyeglasses, contact lenses, or
10
to expeditiously provide plaintiff with medical care once they learned of the rapidly deteriorating
11
condition of her right eye. The failure to provide plaintiff with proper medical care in the form
12
13 of eyeglasses, contact lenses, or expeditious treatment, caused her to suffer pain and anguish,
14 emotional distress, the loss of vision in her right eye, and the trauma of having to live with a
15
physical oddity and deformity in the most viewed part of the human body. The defendants’
16
failure to care for plaintiff’s serious medical conditions amounted to cruel and unusual
17
punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
18
19 Article One, Section 24 of the California Constitution.
20 21. Unknown Doe defendants, (and possibly some of the named defendants), were on notice
21
that plaintiff needed new contact lenses, or eyeglasses, in order to function safely within the
22
Placer County Jail. At all relevant times on and after September 22, 2017, some of the Doe
23
defendants, and all of the named defendants, knew that plaintiff was suffering from a serious
24
25 medical need. In regards to the medical conditions discussed in this complaint, all defendants
26 knew that plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious harm if the medical needs went untreated;
27
they consciously disregarded that risk by not taking reasonable steps to treat plaintiff’s medical
28
6
BOYLE v. PLACER COUNTY, ET. AL.: Second Amended Complaint
needs, they were acting, or purporting to act in the performance of their official duties; plaintiff
1
2 was harmed, and the defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm.
3 Plaintiff hereby alleges that defendant Placer County and its Sheriff are directly liable for failing
4
to perform their non-delegable duty to provide plaintiff with proper medical care. Plaintiff also
5
hereby alleges that defendants Placer County and its Sheriff, Devon Bell, have a custom and
6
7
practice of being deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of Placer County Jail inmates, and
8 that this custom and practice was a moving force behind the failure to provide plaintiff with
9 proper medical care in this case.
10
II. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST SHERIFF DEVON BELL, PLACER COUNTY,
11
AND DOES 1-10 FOR NEGLIGENCE.
12
13 22. At all relevant times defendants Bell, Placer County, and Does 1-10, owed a duty of care
14 to plaintiff in that she was in their custody, or they had a legal obligation to look after her
15
physical health. The defendants breached the duty of care they owed to plaintiff by failing to
16
provide her with contact lenses or glasses, and failing to provide her with swift and proper
17
medical treatment once plaintiff informed them of her deteriorating condition. Plaintiff suffered
18
19 pain, emotional distress, and lost vision as a result of the defendants’ negligence. Plaintiff
20 hereby alleges that defendant Placer County and its Sheriff are directly liable for failing to
21
perform their non-delegable duty to provide plaintiff with proper medical care. Furthermore,
22
Placer County is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employees.
23
III. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CFMG, M. KENDRICK, DIANA LAWSON,
24
25 DR. DAVID DUNCAN, AND DOES 1-10 FOR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE.
26 23. By failing to expeditiously treat plaintiff’s serious medical need, and by mistreating it (by
27
instructing a nurse to apply ointment to the eye and to cover it), Nurse Kendrick, Ms. Lawson
28
7
BOYLE v. PLACER COUNTY, ET. AL.: Second Amended Complaint
(whom plaintiff presumes is a nurse), Dr. Duncan, and Does 1-10, engaged in medical
1
2 negligence. Kendrick, Lawson, Duncan, and Does 1-10 failed to use the skill, knowledge, and
3 care in diagnosis and treatment that other reasonably careful medical professionals would use in
4
the same or similar circumstances. Specifically, upon learning of plaintiff’s serious medical
5
condition Nurse Kendrick and Lawson failed to have plaintiff immediately seen, in person, by a
6
7
doctor. Both Kendrick and Lawson caused ointment and a patch to be placed in/on plaintiff’s
8 right eye, which likely caused plaintiff’s condition to worsen. Plaintiff is also informed and
9 believes that Kendrick and Lawson took their orders from Dr. Duncan.
10
24. Defendants Kendrick, Lawson, Duncan, and Does 1-10 breached the duty of care they
11
owed to plaintiff by failing to provide her with swift and proper medical treatment once plaintiff
12
13 informed them of her deteriorating condition. Plaintiff suffered pain, emotional distress, and lost
14 vision as a result of the defendants’ medical negligence.
15
25. Plaintiff hereby alleges that Placer County and CFMG are vicariously liable for the
16
wrongful acts of defendants Kendrick, Lawson, and Duncan, and the unknown Doe defendants
17
who worked for CFMG, and who may be liable for medical negligence toward plaintiff.
18
19 26. Plaintiff also hereby alleges that defendants Placer County and its Sheriff, Devon Bell,
20 are directly liable to plaintiff for the medical negligence of any persons toward plaintiff because
21
Placer County and its Sheriff had a non-delegable duty to provide proper treatment to plaintiff.
22
IV. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT PLACER COUNTY AND
23
DEVON BELL FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
24
25 27. On September 24, 2017, plaintiff was suffering from a very serious eye condition for
26 which she ultimately needed surgery in order to restore her vision. This condition was visible to
27
anyone who cared to notice it. Yet, when plaintiff asked Deputy Wehe to send her to the medical
28
8
BOYLE v. PLACER COUNTY, ET. AL.: Second Amended Complaint
clinic Wehe disregarded her request. Plaintiff was suffering from an extremely serious medical
1
2 condition but Deputy Wehe simply did not care. In fact, Deputy Wehe threatened to take
3 disciplinary action against plaintiff if she continued to complain about her eye. Deputy Wehe
4
refused to procure medical assistance for plaintiff until she stated that she was suffering from a
5
heart condition. Wehe even threatened to issue plaintiff a “write-up” if she spoke to the staff
6
7
about anything other than a heart condition.
8 28. Deputy Wehe’s refusal to procure medical assistance for plaintiff, and his threats to
9 discipline plaintiff for requesting assistance, or if she spoke to the medical staff about her eye
10
condition, constituted outrageous conduct. Wehe’s refusal to obtain medical assistance for
11
plaintiff, and his threats to discipline her for requesting assistance, or if she spoke to the medical
12
13 staff about her eye condition, were intended to cause plaintiff emotional distress. Wehe’s
14 conduct did, in fact, cause plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress. Placer County and its
15
Sheriff are vicariously liable for the conduct of Deputy Wehe.
16
V. PLACER COUNTY AND ITS SHERIFF MAY BE HELD DIRECTLY OR VICARIOULY
17
LIABLE FOR ALL THE WRONGFUL ACTS OF ITS AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES.
18
19 29. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the PCSO has a custom and practice of not
20 providing proper medical care to its jail inmates. The individual defendants who failed to
21
provide plaintiff with eyeglasses or contact lenses, who failed to provide her with prompt
22
medical treatment, and who provided her with harmful treatment, were all employees or agents
23
of the PCSO. The PCSO’s failure to properly tend to plaintiff’s serious medical condition
24
25 amounted to deliberate indifference to her right to be free from unreasonable searches and
26 seizures. The PCSO’s custom and culture of indifference to the medical needs of its jail inmates
27
was the moving force behind the violation of plaintiff’s rights. As such, Placer County as a
28
9
BOYLE v. PLACER COUNTY, ET. AL.: Second Amended Complaint
municipality should be held directly liable for the civil rights violations committed by its
1
2 employees and agents in regards to plaintiff. Under California law an employer may be held
3 vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of its employees.
4
WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby seeks
5
(a) Special damages against all defendants for plaintiff’s past and future medical care, in an
6
7
amount to be determined according to proof.
8 (b) General damages against all defendants in the amount of $30,000,000.00 for plaintiff’s past,
9 present, and future, pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, and the violation of
10
her constitutional rights.
11
(c) Attorney’s fees from all defendants pursuant to 42 United States Code section 1988 and
12
13 California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, and any other laws entitling plaintiff to
14 recover of such fees.
15
(d) Any other damages or relief to which plaintiff is entitled by law, according to proof, and in
16
the interest of justice.
17
Dated: June 24, 2020 Respectfully submitted
18
19 ________________________
STRATTON S. BARBEE
20 Attorney for Plaintiff
Barbara Boyle
21
22 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.
23
Dated: June 24, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
24
25
________________________
26 STRATTON S. BARBEE
27
Attorney for Plaintiff
Barbara Boyle
28
10
BOYLE v. PLACER COUNTY, ET. AL.: Second Amended Complaint
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
1
2 I, Jean S. Barbee, declare:
3 I am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the county of Sacramento,
4
California; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action; my business address is:
5
6700 Freeport Blvd., Ste. 203A
6 Sacramento, CA 95822
7
E-mail: jean@barbeelawoffice.com
8 On June 24, 2020, I served plaintiff’s SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the
9 following parties listed below by:
10
depositing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage fully
11
prepaid, in the United States Post Office mailbox at Elk Grove, California addressed as follows:
12
13
14 XXXX dispatching a pdf-copy of the attached document referenced herein via electronic
15
mail to:
16 Eric Brumfield
ebrumfield@placer.ca.gov
17 countycounsel@placer.ca.gov
18
19 I, Jean Marie S. Barbee, declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of
20 California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
21
Executed on June 24, 2020, at Elk Grove, California.
22
23
24
Jean Marie S. Barbee ________________________
25 PRINT NAME SIGNATURE
26
27
28
1
Proof of Service
Preview
LAW OFFICE OF STRATTON S. BARBEE 1 Stratton S. Barbee, Bar No. 231026 2 6700 Freeport Blvd., Ste. 203-A Sacramento, CA 95822 3 (916) 684-9389 4 Attorney for Plaintiff 5 Barbara Boyle 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF PLACER 9 10 BARBARA BOYLE, ) Case No.: SCV0041807 11 ) Plaintiff, ) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 12 vs. ) COMPENSATORY AND EXEMPLARY 13 ) TORT DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY COUNTY OF PLACER; ) TRIAL 14 DEVON BELL; CALIFORNIA FORENSIC ) MEDICAL GROUP INC.; M. KENDRICK, ) 15 DIANA LAWSON; DR. DAVID DUNCAN; ) 16 Does 1-10 ) ) 17 Defendants. ) 18 Comes now the plaintiff and complains against the above named defendants, and for a 19 cause of action alleges on information and belief that: 20 1. Plaintiff Barbara Boyle is a natural person and competent adult. 21 22 2. Plaintiff is, and was at all times mentioned herein, a resident of the State of California. 23 3. Defendant Placer County is a municipality, organized under the laws of the State of 24 California. 25 4. Defendant Devon Bell is, and at all relevant times was, a natural person and competent adult, 26 27 and the Sheriff of Placer County. 28 1 BOYLE v. PLACER COUNTY, ET. AL.: Second Amended Complaint 5. Defendant California Forensic Medical Group Incorporated (CFMG) is a corporation, 1 2 organized under the laws of California, and is registered and authorized to do business in the 3 State of California. 4 6. Defendant M. Kendrick is, and at all relevant times was, a natural person and competent 5 adult, and a registered nurse employed by CFMG. 6 7 7. Defendant Diana M. Lawson is, and at all relevant times was, a natural person and competent 8 adult, and was an employee of CFMG. 9 8. Dr. David Duncan is, and at all relevant times was, a natural person and competent adult, and 10 was a medical doctor employed by CFMG. 11 9. Does 1-10 are natural persons and competent adults whose identities are unknown to plaintiff. 12 13 At all relevant times Does 1-10 were either employees of Placer County, CFMG, or were acting 14 at the direction of, and as agents of, Placer County or CFMG. 15 10. In accordance with Government Code section 910, on or about November 7, 2017, plaintiff 16 filed a claim against the Placer County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) and its jail employees for the 17 acts discussed herein. On or about December 7, 2017, Placer County rejected plaintiff’s claim. 18 19 Equitable Tolling 20 11. On or about June 7, 2017, plaintiff filed a Civil Rights Action, pursuant to 42 United 21 States Code section 1983, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 22 Plaintiff, who was still incarcerated at the time, and who was indigent, applied to the District 23 Court to have the initial filing fee waived. However, the Eastern District would not waive 24 25 plaintiff’s filing fee unless she submitted a certified copy of her inmate trust account (books) by 26 July 27, 2018. Plaintiff was unable to obtain a certified copy of her books because the Placer 27 County Jail staff was not familiar with how to certify said record, and as such, plaintiff’s case 28 2 BOYLE v. PLACER COUNTY, ET. AL.: Second Amended Complaint was in jeopardy of being involuntarily dismissed. Out of desperation plaintiff’s counsel fronted 1 2 the $400.00 filing fee on behalf of plaintiff on or about July 29, 2018. However, as of October 4, 3 2019, the federal court still had not issued a summons. Plaintiff’s counsel was afraid that 4 plaintiff’s case might be involuntarily dismissed due to failure to produce the certified books 5 (which plaintiff could not procure, despite her counsel’s diligent efforts), or the filing fee, on 6 7 time. Therefore, on October 4, 2018, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her federal case, without 8 prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 41, subdivision 9 (a)(1)(A)&(B). (See Case #2:18-cv-01690) Plaintiff hereby asserts that the statute of limitations 10 was equitably tolled during the time her case was pending in federal court. (See McDonald v. 11 Antelope Valley Community College Dist. (2008) 45 Cal. 4th 88, 103; Addison v. State of 12 13 California (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 313, 315.) The following day, on October 5, 2018, plaintiff filed 14 the instant action and served it on Placer County. 15 PLAINTIFF’S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 16 12. On June 22, 2017, plaintiff Barbara Boyle was arrested and placed in the custody of the 17 PCSO. Plaintiff was housed in the Placer County Jail. Plaintiff wears contact lenses without 18 19 which her vision is severely impaired. Prior to September 22, 2017, plaintiff requested, on 20 multiple occasions, that the jail staff provide her with contact lenses, but her requests were 21 always denied or simply ignored. The staff would always give plaintiff an excuse for why they 22 could not provide her with contact lenses. Plaintiff also asked for glasses in the alternative, but 23 the staff did not provide her with glasses either. 24 25 13. On or about Friday, September 22, 2017, plaintiff began to feel a severe irritation in her 26 right eye. She feared that there was a swollen or broken capillary and infection in her right eye. 27 Plaintiff informed the Sheriff’s deputies and medical staff and was instructed to complete a 28 3 BOYLE v. PLACER COUNTY, ET. AL.: Second Amended Complaint “kite” (a jail request for services or assistance), which she did. However, plaintiff received no 1 2 treatment. 3 14. The next day (Saturday), September 23, 2017, plaintiff told the on-duty officer that her 4 eye was in pain and that it was rapidly getting worse. Once again plaintiff was instructed to 5 write a kite. Later that day the afternoon pill call nurse happened to see plaintiff’s right eye and 6 7 stated that it was in terrible condition, and assured her that she would be placed on the Sunday 8 sick call list which would allow plaintiff to be seen by a doctor. However, nothing was done to 9 cure plaintiff that day. Plaintiff’s eye condition was rapidly getting worse, but the PCSO treated 10 her condition with no sense of urgency. 11 15. On Sunday, September 24, 2017, plaintiff was not summoned for sick call. Plaintiff 12 13 informed Deputy Wehe of her serious eye condition, but he callously responded with words to 14 the effect of, “Oh well, you’re not on the list.” Plaintiff summoned Deputy Wehe again and told 15 him that she was in pain and that a puss pocket had developed on her right eye. Deputy Wehe 16 expressed that he did not care, and that if plaintiff continued complaining he would issue her a 17 citation (write her up). Due to the severe emergency with her eye plaintiff summoned Deputy 18 19 Wehe again and pleaded with him to allow her to go to the medical clinic, but he would not assist 20 her. It was not until plaintiff told Deputy Wehe that she was having a heart problem that he 21 allowed her to go to the medical clinic. However, Deputy Wehe told plaintiff that if she 22 mentioned any other issues besides a heart problem he would issue her a citation. Wehe did not 23 send plaintiff to the medical clinic until approximately an hour and a half after plaintiff first 24 25 requested medical attention. During this time plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress and 26 unnecessary pain. Plaintiff had already been experiencing emotional distress and unnecessary 27 pain, even before Deputy Wehe refused to let her be seen for her eye. 28 4 BOYLE v. PLACER COUNTY, ET. AL.: Second Amended Complaint 16. While at the medical clinic an African-American nurse by the name of Shae Phinney 1 2 expressed serious concerns about plaintiff’s right eye. Phinney wanted to transport plaintiff to a 3 doctor but could not do so without permission from the Sheriff’s deputies in charge. Thus, 4 plaintiff was not seen by a doctor. Instead, Phinney apparently spoke with a CFMG doctor by 5 phone who instructed her to apply ointment on plaintiff’s eye and to cover it with a patch. 6 7 Plaintiff is informed and believes that this physician was Dr. David Duncan. However, the 8 person with whom Phinney spoke may have been a physician’s assistant, employed by CFMG. 9 Later that evening plaintiff visited the clinic again to seek treatment due to pus coming from her 10 right eye. Defendant Diana Lawson of CFMG denied that pus was coming from plaintiff’s eye 11 and replaced the patch that was applied to plaintiff’s eye earlier that day. 12 13 17. The next day, Monday, September 25, 2017, the jail sent plaintiff to Auburn Eye Care 14 Associates. The doctors at this clinic stated that they had never seen a patient with such a 15 terrible eye condition. They also stated that the medical professional who diagnosed plaintiff by 16 phone gave very bad orders when he told the nurse to place ointment on plaintiff’s eye and then 17 cover it. By covering the eye in such a moist environment it actually caused the infection and 18 19 the bacteria to spread much faster. These specialists told plaintiff that she would need surgery 20 and that she might lose sight in her right eye, or even lose that eye altogether. 21 18. On Tuesday, September 26, 2017, the eye specialists stated that plaintiff’s condition had 22 become so bad that they were unable to treat her. They referred plaintiff to UC Davis Medical 23 Center for immediate treatment (As Soon As Possible). However, plaintiff was not taken to UC 24 25 Davis that day as the specialists ordered. By the next day a gray film had developed over 26 plaintiff’s right eye and she had become blind in that eye. (See attached photos.) Yet, plaintiff 27 was not taken to UC Davis that day either. 28 5 BOYLE v. PLACER COUNTY, ET. AL.: Second Amended Complaint 19. Plaintiff suffered blindness in her right eye and diminished beauty due to the unsightly 1 2 gray membrane that covered that eye for numerous months. 3 I. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PLACER COUNTY, DEVON BELL, AND DOES 4 1-10, FOR VIOLATING PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL RIGHTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF 42 5 U.S.C. §1983. 6 7 20. At all relevant times Placer County, through its Sheriff Devon Bell, was responsible for 8 the health and physical wellbeing of all inmates in the custody of the PCSO. Placer County, 9 Devon Bail, and Does 1 through 10, failed to provide plaintiff with eyeglasses, contact lenses, or 10 to expeditiously provide plaintiff with medical care once they learned of the rapidly deteriorating 11 condition of her right eye. The failure to provide plaintiff with proper medical care in the form 12 13 of eyeglasses, contact lenses, or expeditious treatment, caused her to suffer pain and anguish, 14 emotional distress, the loss of vision in her right eye, and the trauma of having to live with a 15 physical oddity and deformity in the most viewed part of the human body. The defendants’ 16 failure to care for plaintiff’s serious medical conditions amounted to cruel and unusual 17 punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 18 19 Article One, Section 24 of the California Constitution. 20 21. Unknown Doe defendants, (and possibly some of the named defendants), were on notice 21 that plaintiff needed new contact lenses, or eyeglasses, in order to function safely within the 22 Placer County Jail. At all relevant times on and after September 22, 2017, some of the Doe 23 defendants, and all of the named defendants, knew that plaintiff was suffering from a serious 24 25 medical need. In regards to the medical conditions discussed in this complaint, all defendants 26 knew that plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious harm if the medical needs went untreated; 27 they consciously disregarded that risk by not taking reasonable steps to treat plaintiff’s medical 28 6 BOYLE v. PLACER COUNTY, ET. AL.: Second Amended Complaint needs, they were acting, or purporting to act in the performance of their official duties; plaintiff 1 2 was harmed, and the defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm. 3 Plaintiff hereby alleges that defendant Placer County and its Sheriff are directly liable for failing 4 to perform their non-delegable duty to provide plaintiff with proper medical care. Plaintiff also 5 hereby alleges that defendants Placer County and its Sheriff, Devon Bell, have a custom and 6 7 practice of being deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of Placer County Jail inmates, and 8 that this custom and practice was a moving force behind the failure to provide plaintiff with 9 proper medical care in this case. 10 II. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST SHERIFF DEVON BELL, PLACER COUNTY, 11 AND DOES 1-10 FOR NEGLIGENCE. 12 13 22. At all relevant times defendants Bell, Placer County, and Does 1-10, owed a duty of care 14 to plaintiff in that she was in their custody, or they had a legal obligation to look after her 15 physical health. The defendants breached the duty of care they owed to plaintiff by failing to 16 provide her with contact lenses or glasses, and failing to provide her with swift and proper 17 medical treatment once plaintiff informed them of her deteriorating condition. Plaintiff suffered 18 19 pain, emotional distress, and lost vision as a result of the defendants’ negligence. Plaintiff 20 hereby alleges that defendant Placer County and its Sheriff are directly liable for failing to 21 perform their non-delegable duty to provide plaintiff with proper medical care. Furthermore, 22 Placer County is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employees. 23 III. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CFMG, M. KENDRICK, DIANA LAWSON, 24 25 DR. DAVID DUNCAN, AND DOES 1-10 FOR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE. 26 23. By failing to expeditiously treat plaintiff’s serious medical need, and by mistreating it (by 27 instructing a nurse to apply ointment to the eye and to cover it), Nurse Kendrick, Ms. Lawson 28 7 BOYLE v. PLACER COUNTY, ET. AL.: Second Amended Complaint (whom plaintiff presumes is a nurse), Dr. Duncan, and Does 1-10, engaged in medical 1 2 negligence. Kendrick, Lawson, Duncan, and Does 1-10 failed to use the skill, knowledge, and 3 care in diagnosis and treatment that other reasonably careful medical professionals would use in 4 the same or similar circumstances. Specifically, upon learning of plaintiff’s serious medical 5 condition Nurse Kendrick and Lawson failed to have plaintiff immediately seen, in person, by a 6 7 doctor. Both Kendrick and Lawson caused ointment and a patch to be placed in/on plaintiff’s 8 right eye, which likely caused plaintiff’s condition to worsen. Plaintiff is also informed and 9 believes that Kendrick and Lawson took their orders from Dr. Duncan. 10 24. Defendants Kendrick, Lawson, Duncan, and Does 1-10 breached the duty of care they 11 owed to plaintiff by failing to provide her with swift and proper medical treatment once plaintiff 12 13 informed them of her deteriorating condition. Plaintiff suffered pain, emotional distress, and lost 14 vision as a result of the defendants’ medical negligence. 15 25. Plaintiff hereby alleges that Placer County and CFMG are vicariously liable for the 16 wrongful acts of defendants Kendrick, Lawson, and Duncan, and the unknown Doe defendants 17 who worked for CFMG, and who may be liable for medical negligence toward plaintiff. 18 19 26. Plaintiff also hereby alleges that defendants Placer County and its Sheriff, Devon Bell, 20 are directly liable to plaintiff for the medical negligence of any persons toward plaintiff because 21 Placer County and its Sheriff had a non-delegable duty to provide proper treatment to plaintiff. 22 IV. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT PLACER COUNTY AND 23 DEVON BELL FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. 24 25 27. On September 24, 2017, plaintiff was suffering from a very serious eye condition for 26 which she ultimately needed surgery in order to restore her vision. This condition was visible to 27 anyone who cared to notice it. Yet, when plaintiff asked Deputy Wehe to send her to the medical 28 8 BOYLE v. PLACER COUNTY, ET. AL.: Second Amended Complaint clinic Wehe disregarded her request. Plaintiff was suffering from an extremely serious medical 1 2 condition but Deputy Wehe simply did not care. In fact, Deputy Wehe threatened to take 3 disciplinary action against plaintiff if she continued to complain about her eye. Deputy Wehe 4 refused to procure medical assistance for plaintiff until she stated that she was suffering from a 5 heart condition. Wehe even threatened to issue plaintiff a “write-up” if she spoke to the staff 6 7 about anything other than a heart condition. 8 28. Deputy Wehe’s refusal to procure medical assistance for plaintiff, and his threats to 9 discipline plaintiff for requesting assistance, or if she spoke to the medical staff about her eye 10 condition, constituted outrageous conduct. Wehe’s refusal to obtain medical assistance for 11 plaintiff, and his threats to discipline her for requesting assistance, or if she spoke to the medical 12 13 staff about her eye condition, were intended to cause plaintiff emotional distress. Wehe’s 14 conduct did, in fact, cause plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress. Placer County and its 15 Sheriff are vicariously liable for the conduct of Deputy Wehe. 16 V. PLACER COUNTY AND ITS SHERIFF MAY BE HELD DIRECTLY OR VICARIOULY 17 LIABLE FOR ALL THE WRONGFUL ACTS OF ITS AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES. 18 19 29. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the PCSO has a custom and practice of not 20 providing proper medical care to its jail inmates. The individual defendants who failed to 21 provide plaintiff with eyeglasses or contact lenses, who failed to provide her with prompt 22 medical treatment, and who provided her with harmful treatment, were all employees or agents 23 of the PCSO. The PCSO’s failure to properly tend to plaintiff’s serious medical condition 24 25 amounted to deliberate indifference to her right to be free from unreasonable searches and 26 seizures. The PCSO’s custom and culture of indifference to the medical needs of its jail inmates 27 was the moving force behind the violation of plaintiff’s rights. As such, Placer County as a 28 9 BOYLE v. PLACER COUNTY, ET. AL.: Second Amended Complaint municipality should be held directly liable for the civil rights violations committed by its 1 2 employees and agents in regards to plaintiff. Under California law an employer may be held 3 vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of its employees. 4 WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby seeks 5 (a) Special damages against all defendants for plaintiff’s past and future medical care, in an 6 7 amount to be determined according to proof. 8 (b) General damages against all defendants in the amount of $30,000,000.00 for plaintiff’s past, 9 present, and future, pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, and the violation of 10 her constitutional rights. 11 (c) Attorney’s fees from all defendants pursuant to 42 United States Code section 1988 and 12 13 California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, and any other laws entitling plaintiff to 14 recover of such fees. 15 (d) Any other damages or relief to which plaintiff is entitled by law, according to proof, and in 16 the interest of justice. 17 Dated: June 24, 2020 Respectfully submitted 18 19 ________________________ STRATTON S. BARBEE 20 Attorney for Plaintiff Barbara Boyle 21 22 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial. 23 Dated: June 24, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 24 25 ________________________ 26 STRATTON S. BARBEE 27 Attorney for Plaintiff Barbara Boyle 28 10 BOYLE v. PLACER COUNTY, ET. AL.: Second Amended Complaint DECLARATION OF SERVICE 1 2 I, Jean S. Barbee, declare: 3 I am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the county of Sacramento, 4 California; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action; my business address is: 5 6700 Freeport Blvd., Ste. 203A 6 Sacramento, CA 95822 7 E-mail: jean@barbeelawoffice.com 8 On June 24, 2020, I served plaintiff’s SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the 9 following parties listed below by: 10 depositing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage fully 11 prepaid, in the United States Post Office mailbox at Elk Grove, California addressed as follows: 12 13 14 XXXX dispatching a pdf-copy of the attached document referenced herein via electronic 15 mail to: 16 Eric Brumfield ebrumfield@placer.ca.gov 17 countycounsel@placer.ca.gov 18 19 I, Jean Marie S. Barbee, declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of 20 California, that the foregoing is true and correct. 21 Executed on June 24, 2020, at Elk Grove, California. 22 23 24 Jean Marie S. Barbee ________________________ 25 PRINT NAME SIGNATURE 26 27 28 1 Proof of Service