Steinle v. City & County of San Francisco
230 F. Supp. 3d 994, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2380, 2017 WL 67064 (2017)
Rule of Law:
Government entities are generally immune from liability for negligence unless a specific statute imposes a mandatory duty designed to protect against the particular kind of injury suffered. Federal agencies are protected from tort claims by the discretionary function exception if their actions involve policy-based judgment, but a duty of care for firearm storage can arise under California common law depending on the foreseeability of harm.
Facts:
- Chapter 12H of the San Francisco Administrative Code limited information sharing with federal immigration officials but included exceptions for individuals previously convicted of felonies and as required by state or federal law.
- Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez had been convicted of at least seven felonies and deported to Mexico at least five times.
- On March 13, 2015, then-Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi issued a memorandum to his department, instructing employees not to provide citizenship/immigration status or release dates to ICE unless required by court order or warrant.
- On March 26, 2015, Lopez-Sanchez completed a federal prison sentence and was transferred to San Francisco Sheriff's Department custody to face additional felony charges.
- On March 27, 2015, the felony charges against Lopez-Sanchez were dropped, and ICE sent a detainer request asking the Sheriff's Department to notify ICE 48 hours before release and to hold him.
- On April 15, 2015, the San Francisco Sheriff's Department released Lopez-Sanchez without notifying ICE or responding to the detainer request, consistent with Sheriff Mirkarimi's policy.
- On June 27, 2015, a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ranger left his loaded, unlocked government-issued handgun in a backpack in an unattended vehicle in downtown San Francisco, where it was stolen.
- On July 1, 2015, Lopez-Sanchez acquired the stolen handgun and shot and killed Kathryn Steinle near Pier 14 of the San Francisco Embarcadero.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs James Steinle and Elizabeth Sullivan (individually, as heirs, and as representatives of Kathryn Steinle's estate) filed an action against Ross Mirkarimi, the City and County of San Francisco, and the United States of America.
- Ross Mirkarimi and the City and County of San Francisco (collectively, the 'City Defendants') filed a motion to dismiss all claims against them.
- The United States of America filed a separate motion to dismiss all claims against it.
- The Court held a hearing on December 2, 2016, to consider both motions to dismiss.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does California law impose liability on the City and County of San Francisco and Sheriff Mirkarimi for negligence (general or per se) or for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due process violation, based on a policy restricting communication with federal immigration authorities regarding a felon's release, when that policy did not create a specific, particularized danger to Kathryn Steinle? 2. Does the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waive the United States' sovereign immunity for negligence claims based on ICE's failure to detain an alien subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)? 3. Does California common law impose a duty of care on a federal employee to secure a loaded handgun in an unattended vehicle, such that its theft and subsequent use by a third party to cause injury or death is a foreseeable risk?
Opinions:
Majority - Joseph C. Spero
No, California law does not impose liability on the City and County of San Francisco and Sheriff Mirkarimi for negligence (general or per se) or for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due process violation based on a policy restricting communication with federal immigration authorities regarding a felon's release. The court found that none of the cited federal, state, or local laws (8 U.S.C. § 1373(a), California Health & Safety Code § 11369, California Government Code § 7282.5(a), or San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 12H) created a mandatory duty on Sheriff Mirkarimi or the City to inform ICE of an inmate's release date or to allow discretion for such communication. Specifically, 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a) only governs citizenship/immigration status, not release dates, and was not intended to prevent violent crime, which is a requirement for negligence per se claims. California H&S Code § 11369 applied to the 'arresting agency,' which the Sheriff's Department was not in this instance. California Gov't Code § 7282.5(a) granted discretion to cooperate but also permitted local policy to limit such discretion, meaning Mirkarimi had no mandatory duty to refrain from setting limits. San Francisco's Chapter 12H merely limited its own scope, not the Sheriff's authority, and thus did not create a mandatory duty. Therefore, claims for negligence per se fail as no actionable mandatory duty was violated, and the statutes were not designed to prevent this type of harm. For general negligence, Sheriff Mirkarimi's issuance of the March 13 memorandum was a discretionary policy decision, resulting from a 'conscious balancing of risks and advantages,' which falls within a county sheriff's broad authority. Under California Government Code § 820.2, public employees are immune from liability for exercising such discretion, and § 815.2(b) extends this immunity to public entities. Regarding the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, the court determined that the 'state-created danger' doctrine did not apply because Mirkarimi's policy decision, while criticized, increased danger to the public as a whole and did not place Kathryn Steinle in a 'particularized danger' distinguishable from the general public. Finally, for procedural due process, the Constitution does not require a hearing before local law enforcement officials set policies that might generally affect public safety, as the asserted 'right to life and liberty' in this context was effectively a general right to protection from crime, which the Constitution does not guarantee in these circumstances. This would have far-reaching and impractical implications for public safety management.
Majority - Joseph C. Spero
No, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) does not waive the United States' sovereign immunity for negligence claims based on ICE's failure to detain an alien subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). The court applied the two-part discretionary function exception test under the FTCA (28 U.S.C. § 2680(a)). First, the court found that while 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) states the 'Attorney General shall take into custody' certain aliens, it does not mandate how and when that apprehension occurs, nor does it require ICE to devote whatever resources are necessary to detain an alien immediately upon release from state custody. Undisputed evidence of ICE's resource constraints and prioritization demonstrates that ICE must exercise judgment in determining the methods and resources to use. Second, the court concluded that decisions regarding the allocation of resources and prioritization of apprehensions, especially given resource constraints and the need to weigh risks, are 'susceptible to policy analysis' and are precisely the kind of governmental actions and decisions the discretionary function exception is designed to shield. Therefore, the claims against ICE are barred by sovereign immunity.
Majority - Joseph C. Spero
Yes, California common law can impose a duty of care on a federal employee to secure a loaded handgun in an unattended vehicle, such that its theft and subsequent use by a third party to cause injury or death is a foreseeable risk. California law generally imposes a stringent duty of care for dealing with firearms. The court relied on the 'special circumstances' doctrine, typically applied to stolen vehicles, to determine the foreseeability of harm. The court found that leaving a loaded, unlocked handgun in a backpack visible on the seat of an unattended vehicle in downtown San Francisco, an area known for car break-ins, plausibly 'create[s] foreseeable risk of harm' comparable to that posed by leaving a dangerous vehicle with keys in the ignition. A handgun is a deadly weapon, and leaving it loaded and accessible makes its capability for harm readily available. At the pleading stage, it was plausible that Lopez-Sanchez stole the gun and that the theft and subsequent shooting were reasonably foreseeable risks of the BLM ranger's failure to secure the handgun. However, the negligence per se claim against the U.S. regarding the BLM ranger was dismissed with leave to amend because the internal BLM manuals cited by Plaintiffs were not alleged to have been formally adopted as regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act, as required by California Evidence Code § 669.1 to serve as a source of mandatory duty for negligence per se.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent for governmental immunity, clarifying the boundaries of liability for public entities and employees. It reinforces that policy-level decisions, even those leading to tragic outcomes, are generally protected under California's discretionary immunity and the FTCA's discretionary function exception, underscoring the legal system's deference to governmental resource allocation and policy choices. However, the decision also carves out an important distinction by allowing a common law negligence claim to proceed against the federal government for an employee's failure to secure a dangerous instrumentality like a loaded firearm, particularly where the risk of harm from theft and subsequent use is foreseeable. This ruling signals that while policy-making remains largely shielded, operational negligence by government employees, especially concerning inherently dangerous items, can still lead to accountability.
