Judge further trims suit over Napa State Hospital patient stabbing

Marcella Elizabeth Martinez claims the hospital didn't protect her from being stabbed by a fellow patient while she was being involuntarily committed.SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Multiple claims brought by a woman stabbed by a fellow patient while involuntarily committed at Napa State Hospital will proceed to trial, a federal judge ruled.Marcella Elizabeth Martinez sued the psychiatric hospital in August 2023, claiming it didn’t protect her from being stabbed by a fellow patient, a transgender woman, while she was involuntarily committed. Martinez says she reported to the hospital at least three different times that the other patient was threatening her, making unwanted sexual advances and calling her racial slurs, before the other patient eventually stabbed her four times with a makeshift knife and sent her to the emergency room.In her order, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston granted summary judgment on negligent supervision claims against Cindy Black, executive director of Napa State Hospital, and Veronica Inocencio, the supervisor of the unit Martinez was assigned to. The judge noted Martinez conceded summary judgment was appropriate as to the Transgender Treatment Advisory Committee defendants, as well as Black in her official capacity.However, the Bill Clinton appointee advanced claims of failure to protect and negligence against Black, Inocencio and members of Martinez’s treatment team — all in their individual capacities — to trial, ruling there were genuine issues of material fact for each of the surviving claims.“Here, by contrast, there is a material dispute regarding whether and to what degree defendants violated the professional judgment standard,” she wrote in the 16-page order, released Friday.The judge denied the defendants’ argument that they have qualified immunity for following a nondiscrimination policy by housing Martinez, a cisgender female, in a unit with a transgender female, writing that the “defendants misunderstand plaintiff’s theory.”“Plaintiff does not assert that housing her with a transgender patient violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights per se,” Illston wrote. “Rather, ‘plaintiff is seeking relief on a claim that defendants acted with conscious indifference to a known threat to plaintiff’s safety’ by housing her with Patient B in particular.”The judge further rejected Inocencio’s argument that she should be dismissed from the case because she was not physically present at the hospital on the day Martinez was stabbed, as well as Black and Inocencio’s claims that they owed no duty of care to Martinez as hospital officials not involved in patient care.“Because defendants concede that California law imposes a general duty of care on everyone, and because factual disputes remain as to Black and Inocencio’s direct involvement with plaintiff and with Patient B, summary judgment is inappropriate,” Illston wrote.Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Martinez initially filed a lawsuit in state court in 2020, naming Napa State Hospital, Black, the California Department of State Hospitals and unknown individuals involved as defendants. The case was moved to federal court that December.In late 2022, Martinez’s lawyer told the court Martinez was still at Napa State Hospital and expected to remain there for up to three years. However, Martinez has testified she was released from the facility that July.Martinez voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit in December 2022 and filed another against the same defendants in August 2023, representing herself. She was later appointed new counsel.Last February, Illston dismissed the California Department of State Hospitals from the suit. That August, Martinez filed a third amended complaint identifying several unnamed individuals, including Clendenin, director of the California Department of State Hospitals; Inocencio; members of the hospital’s Transgender Treatment Advisory Committee; and members of her treatment team.Claims against Clendenin were dismissed earlier this year.Arguing for summary judgment, the treatment team defendants asserted they were not proper “Doe defendants,” and claims against them should be tossed because Martinez knew of their identities when she filed suit. However, in last Friday’s ruling, Illston found it unclear whether Martinez knew her treatment team’s real names when she initially sued.“Defendants stated that the case stands for the proposition that knowing a defendant’s last name and the grounds for liability suffice to name a defendant, but the case is unclear about whether the plaintiff knew the defendant’s full name when she failed to name him in her original complaint,” Illston wrote.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads