SAN DIEGO – The California Court of Appeals for the 4th Appellate District on Jan. 22 reversed a decision of the Superior Court of Riverside County, restoring a man’s claims of defamation after he had a felony charge wrongly placed on his record for withholding evidence in a court case.
Douglas Roger, an orthopedic surgeon, also claimed his federal civil rights were violated and he lost a lucrative hospital contract from what amounted to an arrest booking error in December 2013.
“We reverse the judgment dismissing the defamation, writ of mandamus, declaratory relief, and section 1983 (civil rights violation) claims,” Justice Marsha G. Slough wrote.
Roger sued Riverside County and its sheriff’s department after they falsely reported he had been charged with a felony.
In an earlier civil action, the Riverside Superior Court had held Roger in civil contempt for allegedly refusing to produce his patients’ medical records in discovery and remanded him to jail, where he spent 52 days in custody.
When the sheriff’s department booked him into custody, it incorrectly entered his civil violation in its electronic database as a felony charge and reported the inaccurate charge to the California Department of Justice (DOJ), creating a false criminal record for Roger.
The Superior Court deemed the civil rights violation claim was irrelevant and disposed of the remaining causes of action under a summary judgment, saying Roger had not demonstrated that training of the booking officers was deliberate indifference to the rights of inmates.
“The court dismissed the defamation claims because the evidence showed Roger had failed to comply with the claim presentation requirements in the Government Claims Act by filing a late claim for damages with Riverside County,” Slough wrote.
The Superior Court also concluded a writ claim by the plaintiff had failed because the evidence showed county officers had fixed the error in Roger’s record during the litigation, and therefore their record-keeping errors amounted to a past wrong, not a present controversy.
“...The court concluded there was no legal basis for declaratory relief because respondents were under no ministerial duty to act – that is, to maintain correct records,” Slough wrote.
The Superior Court dismissed the claims and Roger appealed.
Slough found that the county was not immune from liability because performance of the arrest booking incorrectly listing it as a felony instead of a civil violation did not trigger such immunity from prosecution.
Slough also agreed with Roger’s argument that the booking procedure for civil contempt of court is a matter of public importance and the mistakes that occurred in his case were likely to happen to others as a procedure for accurately recording civil contempt violations had not been developed by the county.
The Appeals Court added that dismissal by the lower court of Roger’s claims of civil rights violations and faulting booking officers’ training were made in error.
“We conclude the court required Roger to know too much about the respondents' booking procedures at the pleading stage,” Slough wrote.
The Appeals Court reversed the judgment of the Superior Court in dismissing the defamation, writ of mandamus, declaratory relief and section 1983 civil rights violation claims.