Culbertson v. County of Santa Clara

California Court of Appeal Apr 18, 1968 No. Civ. 23805Published

Before: Draper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a complaint alleging a failure to serve a detention order and petition in a mental illness proceeding states a valid cause of action for false imprisonment against the county. The failure to comply with mandatory statutory service requirements renders the detention wrongful, precluding the dismissal of the claim via demurrer.

Issues

Whether a failure to serve a detention order and petition in a mental illness proceeding states a cause of action for false imprisonment.
Whether a county is liable for a deputy sheriff's failure to comply with statutory service requirements in a civil mental health proceeding.

Disposition. Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Failure of the deputy sheriff to effect such service, if proven, necessarily renders wrongful his detention of plaintiff.”

“We conclude that the count for false imprisonment states a cause of action against defendant county.”

“We hold only that the allegation raises a triable issue of fact, and bars sustaining of a general demurrer.”

DRAPER, P. J.

The complaint alleges that on May 28, 1965, upon the filing of a petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5551) by a deputy sheriff, an order for examination and detention of plaintiff (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5554) was issued by the superior court. Plaintiff was taken into custody at his home, and was delivered to Agnews State Hospital, where he was held for some days. A hearing was noticed and held. Plaintiff was released and the proceedings dismissed, without adjudication of mental illness. He brought this action against the county for damages for false imprisonment. The county’s ■general demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff appeals.

We look only to the allegation that plaintiff was never served with any order of detention or petition for examination. It is conceded that no relative or friend was ever so served. But the code affirmatively requires such service (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5050.2, as it stood before and after May 28,1965).

Respondent county argues that since the order of detention is valid on its face, there can be no liability for its execution by a deputy sheriff. We readily recognize the rule that law enforcement officers are not required, at their peril, to determine the propriety of an apparently valid order issued by a court

(Vallindras

Massachusetts etc. Ins. Co.,

42 Cal.2d 149, 154 [265 P.2d 907]). But the defect here alleged is not in the court order. Rather, the deficiency lies in the failure of the deputy sheriff to perform the duty specifically imposed upon him by the statute. The statutory mandate is clear and direct. .

Service of notice of hearing (which would have been effected by service of the required documents) is essential to a valid detention order in a mental illness proceeding (see

In re Hofmann,

131 Cal.App.2d 758 [281 P.2d 96]).

Hofmann

was a proceeding in habeas corpus. Respondent seeks to distinguish it upon the rule that discharge from a criminal commitment on habeas corpus does not establish a right to damages in a civil action

(Vallindras

Massachusetts etc. Ins. Co., supra).

Culbertson v. County of Santa Clara

AI Brief

DRAPER, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief