Saxton

Saxton v. County of Sonoma

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 12, 20243:21-cv-09499California1,573 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

DISCUSSION

I. First Cause of Action

19 The first cause of action is brought by the Saxton plaintiffs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 20 and alleges that all defendants “failed to intervene” in various ways to prevent fentanyl from being 21 smuggled into the Main Adult Detention Facility (“MADF”) in Sonoma County, where Marcotte 22 was being housed. FACC ¶¶ 154-164. That cause of action alleges, 23 157. Though the Sheriff’s MADF staff were, like the inmates in the Jail, well aware that the most common method of smuggling narcotics into the MADF was for an inmate worker in booking to receive drugs from detainees in the booking area and then walk the drugs into the Modules, the Sheriff did nothing to bolster security in the booking area in the five months that there was no operational body scanner in the MADF. Though the Sheriff’s staff could have suspended their use of narcotics offenders as inmate workers in booking, or implemented cavity searches or mandatory strip searches of the inmate workers in booking, or instituted canine searches of the inmate workers in booking, the Sheriff instead did nothing to 158. On October …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.