Julian v. Mission Community Hospital (11 Cal. App. 5th 360, 2017)

Opinion

SEGAL, J.—

INTRODUCTION

This action arises out of a series of events that began at a Los Angeles middle school, where Katia Julian taught mathematics, and ended at Mission Community Hospital, where Julian was involuntarily detained for mental health evaluation and treatment. After her release, Julian sued the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the Los Angeles Unified School Police (LAUSP), and five individual police officers (collectively, the school defendants) who detained her and helped transport her to the hospital. She alleged the school defendants did not have probable cause under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150 to detain her. Julian also sued the hospital (Mission Community Hospital), its owner (Deanco Healthcare, LLC), and the physician who treated her there (Dr. Abdul Shirazi) (collectively, the hospital defendants), alleging they lacked probable cause to continue to detain her and to admit her to the hospital where she spent one night before she was released the next day.

Julian’s operative third amended complaint sought monetary damages for various alleged violations of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (section 5000 et seq.) (the Act) and of her civil rights under the federal and state constitutions. The trial court sustained the hospital defendants’ demurrers to Julian’s third amended complaint and granted the school defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

We conclude there is no private right of action for the violations of the Act Julian alleged. We also conclude the school district and the school police are immune from liability under title 42 United States Code section 1983 (United States Code section 1983), the individual officers are entitled to qualified immunity, the hospital and physician are not state actors for purposes of Julian’s section 1983 claims, most of the provisions of the California Constitution Julian invoked do not create causes of action for damages, and Julian failed to state a claim for violations of those provisions that might provide such a cause of action. Finally, because the hospital defendants are not state actors for purposes of section 1983, they cannot be liable for Julian’s alleged violations of the California Constitution. Therefore, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The School Police Detain Julian

On May 1, 2012 Julian attended a mathematics department meeting in a classroom at the middle school where she taught. Julian claimed that at the end of the meeting another teacher “physically assaulted” her by grabbing her hand as she tried to close the door to the classroom. Julian reported the alleged assault to the school’s principal, Nidia Castro, who told Julian she would report the incident to the school police. Julian asked Castro not to report the incident to the school police because, as Castro knew, Julian had “a severe nervous reaction” to the school police stemming from earlier incidents. Castro also knew Julian had a “seizure disorder that was exacerbated by extreme stress.”

That evening Castro received a text message from Julian’s close friend, Jackie Ibrahim, another teacher at the school who had been discussing with Julian some recent changes at the school. The message read, “Wow I finally convinced Katia to stay and now you throw me this curve ball—it seems the situation changes each day . . . you really got our hopes up and now you are going back on what you said. I want to throw up and Katia wants to slit her wrists.” Castro responded, “I am concerned about the line ‘Katia wants to slit her wri[s]ts’ do I need to send someone to her? Are you with her? Will she be okay? This entire process has been very chaotic and has not been easy for me either. Just hang in there.” Ibrahim informed Castro she was with Julian, and Castro took no further action at that time.

The following morning Castro met with Julian on an unrelated matter and recorded in her notes that they had “a very relaxed, friendly conversation.” Despite Julian’s request that Castro not report the alleged assault to the school police, Castro believed “a report needed to be made,” so she sought advice from a superior who suggested she speak with someone in the office of crisis counseling. Castro explained to the crisis counselor that she knew she had a responsibility to address Julian’s claim of a physical assault but wanted to be sensitive to her fear of the school police. Castro also explained she needed to be “extra sensitive” in light of Ibrahim’s text stating that Julian wanted to slit her wrists. The crisis counselor reminded Castro of her “responsibility for employee safety” and advised her to follow the guidelines governing workplace violence.

Castro reported the alleged assault to Officer Libier Valencia, a school police officer assigned to the middle school, even though Castro knew Julian disliked Officer Valencia. While Castro was discussing the situation with Officer Valencia, Karen Miller and a crisis counselor called Castro with additional questions about Julian. During this conversation, Castro and Officer Valencia revealed that Julian had scratches on her forearms Julian had told Castro were caused by her cats and that Julian had expressed a need for “revenge” against yet another teacher who had crossed her. All of the participants in this conversation agreed they needed additional information from Julian about the alleged assault, and, because Castro and Officer Valencia knew Julian would not want to speak to Officer Valencia, they requested that another officer question Julian. Sergeant Robert Taylor, Officer Valencia’s superior officer, eventually arrived to question her.

Before questioning Julian, Sergeant Taylor called Miller for more information. Miller told Sergeant Taylor she was concerned about Julian’s mental stability because Julian had recently lost a different lawsuit against the school district and had told her best friend she was going to “slit her wrists.” Miller impressed upon Sergeant Taylor that Julian might be suicidal. Sergeant Taylor requested additional officers for backup, including Officers Yvonne Miranda, Elizabeth Lara, and Jose Cardenas.

Aware of Julian’s previous encounters with Officer Valencia, Sergeant Taylor and Castro agreed that Castro would make initial contact with Julian and explain to her Sergeant Taylor was there to interview her about the alleged assault. The other officers remained in a conference room nearby while Castro approached Julian with Sergeant Taylor behind her. Castro told Julian the officer was there to “take her report.” In response, Julian ran down the hallway and placed herself between a student desk and a copier. She told Sergeant Taylor she did not want to talk to him, began crying and screaming, and dropped or slid to the floor with her back against the wall. Another school administrator came out of her office, told Castro she had seen Julian do something similar before, and offered to take Julian into her office so she could calm down. Castro declined her offer because Julian continued screaming “get away from me” and Castro did not know at whom Julian was screaming.

According to Castro’s notes, which Julian submitted in opposition to the school defendants’ motion for summary judgment (and which the parties refer to as the “Castro timeline”), Sergeant Taylor asked Julian to “calm down” and told her “she [w]as safe.” Julian began “screaming even louder.” As Officer Valencia approached, Julian continued screaming, “Get away from me.” Castro crouched down in front of Julian and told her she would not leave her alone with the officers and they would not harm her, while Sergeant Taylor remained four or five feet away. Julian told Castro she was afraid Sergeant Taylor was going to hurt her, and Castro told her that “all he wanted was to get her statement regarding her allegations of physical assault.” Julian said Sergeant Taylor “was [taking] her freedom away.” Castro asked Sergeant Taylor to leave her alone with Julian, but he said he could not do that. Sergeant Taylor stated that, “due to [Julian’s] state and reactions, he was going to call paramedics,” at which point Julian yelled she had done nothing wrong and continued to scream “leave” and “get away from me.”

While waiting for the ambulance to arrive, Julian reached for her phone inside a small bag beside her. Not knowing what Julian was reaching for, Sergeant Taylor approached, knelt down, and turned Julian around to handcuff her. Julian resisted, and Sergeant Taylor called the other officers to assist. Officer Miranda attempted to control the growing crowd of students, employees, and parents in the area. Julian continued to scream, struggled with the officers, and complained after she had been handcuffed that her back hurt. Julian asked Castro to take her phone from her bag and call her attorney, but Castro was unable to call him before the ambulance arrived.

When the paramedics arrived, they attempted to move Julian to a gurney, but she resisted and said to Castro, “Do you see what they are doing to me?” Another administrator told Julian to cooperate, but Castro noted the more the paramedics asked Julian to calm down “the angrier she became.” Eventually the paramedics secured Julian on a gurney and transported her to Mission Community Hospital, approximately one block from the school.

B. The Hospital Detains Julian

Upon arriving at the hospital, Julian continued “to thrash and try to slide off the [g]urney.” Officer Valencia gave the hospital a completed application for 72-hour detention for evaluation and treatment form pursuant to section 5150. The application stated Julian “went out of control, throwing herself to the floor” when the school police contacted her about a criminal investigation, and Julian “made statements to [an]other school staff member that she wanted to cut her wrist.” The section 5150 application further stated: “She has 6 to 8 cuts on the right & left wrist. Mrs. Julian came into a crawling position and was screaming out of control.” The document concluded, “Based upon the above information it appears that there is probable cause to believe that [Julian] is, as a result of mental disorder^ a] danger to . . . herself [and a] danger to others.” Julian calmed down after approximately 15 minutes in the hospital, and the paramedics asked the officers to remove the handcuffs.

Dr. Daniel Moghadam initially examined Julian. Julian alleged he ignored the ‘“cat scratches” on her arms, failed to investigate her seizure disorder, and “erroneously accepted” the information in the section 5150 form from the school police. Dr. Moghadam transferred Julian to the behavioral health unit. Julian alleged the hospital held her there an “unnecessarily long time,” and she never received a proper examination by a qualified individual designated by the hospital pursuant to the Welfare and Institutions Code. Instead, she alleged, Dr. Shirazi, who was not a board certified psychiatrist or designated by the hospital to detain persons with possible mental disorders, telephoni-cally ordered Julian’s detention for up to 72 hours and “illegally prescribed anti-psychotic medications” without examining her or obtaining her informed consent.

Although the chronology of events in Julian’s allegations is unclear, she appears to have alleged that, after her detention, another doctor, “who was not qualified to do an assessment and yet improperly diagnosed an acute psychosis, noted but did not investigate a seizure disorder, and also failed to notice the lack of cuts on her arms.” After Julian spent the night in the hospital, Dr. Shirazi personally examined her the next day and released her. Julian alleged, “Had the hospital protocol required the physician to undertake a careful examination of [her] . . . [she] would have been rejected as a detainee.”

C. Julian Sues the School Defendants and the Hospital Defendants

Julian sued the school defendants and the hospital defendants for violations of the Act, violations of her civil rights under United States Code section 1983 and the California Constitution, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and medical negligence. The trial court sustained demurrers by all of the defendants, and Julian eventually filed the operative third amended complaint. That complaint did not include causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress or medical negligence.

The school defendants answered the third amended complaint and filed a motion for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication. The hospital defendants demurred again.

Following a hearing on the demurrers and the motion for summary judgment, the trial court granted the school defendants’ motion for summary judgment. With regard to Julian’s first cause of action for violations of the Act, the court ruled the school defendants were immune from liability because they properly exercised their authority to place Julian on a 72-hour hold. In particular, the court stated Julian’s “behavior was bizarre and the [school defendants] are not required to make a definitive prognosis of [Julian’s] mental health” before detaining her. With regard to Julian’s civil rights claims, the court found the school defendants enjoyed qualified immunity and “undisputed supporting evidence supported the actions of the [school defendants’] authority under the law” to detain Julian. The court also found the school defendants were immune from liability for civil rights violations under the California Constitution pursuant to Government Code section 821.6. Counsel for Julian abandoned the false imprisonment cause of action by acknowledging it was “no longer viable.”

On the demurrers by the hospital defendants, the court ruled the third amended complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action. The court found the third amended complaint was not significantly different from the “prior iterations of the complaint.” With regard to the cause of action for statutory violations, the court stated “the pleading suffers from the same shortcomings as that in the [second] amended complaint without new facts or law presented.” On Julian’s causes of action for civil rights violations, the court ruled the complaint failed “to show how Dr. Shirazi, or the hospital, acted under the color of law or had any role in violating [Julian’s] civil rights.” Julian again conceded her cause of action for false imprisonment was not viable and withdrew it. The court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend. Julian timely appealed from the ensuing judgment.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

“A motion for summary judgment is properly granted only when ‘all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ [Citation.] We review a grant of summary judgment de novo and decide independently whether the facts not subject to triable dispute warrant judgment for the moving party as a matter of law. [Citations.] The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” (Samara v. Matar (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 796, 802-803 [214 Cal.Rptr.3d 346]; see Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Biancalana v. T.D. Service Co. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 807, 813 [156 Cal.Rptr.3d 437, 300 P.3d 518]; Drexler v. Petersen (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1181, 1188 [209 Cal.Rptr.3d 332].) “A triable issue of material fact exists where ‘the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.’ ” (Jade Fashion & Co., Inc. v. Harkham Industries, Inc. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 635, 643 [177 Cal.Rptr.3d 184].) We may affirm a summary judgment if it is correct on any of the grounds asserted in the trial court, regardless of the trial court’s stated reasons. (Grebing v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 631, 637 [184 Cal.Rptr.3d 155].)

We review the trial court’s order sustaining the hospital defendants’ demurrers de novo. (See Eckler v. Neutrogena Corp. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 433, 438 [189 Cal.Rptr.3d 339]; Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 390-391 [185 Cal.Rptr.3d 228].) In so doing, we exercise our “ ‘ “independent judgment about whether the complaint states a cause of action as a matter of law.” ’ ” (Eckler, at p. 438.) We assume the truth of all properly pleaded facts, but we do not assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Lyles v. Sangadeo-Patel (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 759, 764 [171 Cal.Rptr.3d 34]; see Eckler, at p. 438.) We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. (John v. Superior Court (2016) 63 Cal.4th 91, 95 [201 Cal.Rptr.3d 459, 369 P.3d 238]; Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 837 [189 Cal.Rptr.3d 824, 352 P.3d 391].)

“ ‘If a demurrer is sustained, we exercise our independent judgment on whether a cause of action has been stated as a matter of law, regardless of reasons stated by the trial court. [Citation.] We affirm if the trial court’s decision was correct on any theory.’ ” (Schermer v. Tatum (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 912, 923 [200 Cal.Rptr.3d 144]; see Ivanoff v. Bank of America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 732, fn. 2 [215 Cal.Rptr.3d 442] [“appellate court must affirm if the trial court’s decision to sustain the demurrer was correct on any theory”].)

B. The Lantermcm-Petris-Short Act

The Legislature enacted the Act in 1967 to govern the involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons. (Stats. 1967, ch. 1667, § 36, p. 4074; State Dept. of Public Health v. Superior Court (2015) 60 Cal.4th 940, 952 [184 Cal.Rptr.3d 60, 342 P.3d 1217]; Coburn v. Sievert (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1492 [35 Cal.Rptr.3d 596] (Coburn).) One of the purposes of the Act is to provide “prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with mental health disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism.” (§ 5001, subd. (b).) This purpose “reflects the unfortunate reality that mental illness in its most acute form can pose a danger to the individuals themselves or others that requires immediate attention. To achieve this purpose, a number of [the] Act[’s] provisions allow a person to be removed from the general population in order to be civilly committed based on a probable cause determination made by a mental health or law enforcement professional, and then to challenge the civil commitment within a reasonable time afterwards.” (Cooley v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 228, 253-254 [127 Cal.Rptr.2d 177, 57 P.3d 654].)

The Act safeguards the rights of the involuntarily committed through judicial review. (See § 5001; Sorenson v. Superior Court (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 409, 423 [161 Cal.Rptr.3d 794].) For example, the Act limits involuntary commitment to successive periods of increasingly longer duration, beginning with a 72-hour detention for evaluation and treatment. (§ 5150; Sorenson, at p. 423.) Commitments longer than the initial 72-hour detention require a certification hearing before an appointed hearing officer to determine whether there is probable cause for confinement, unless the detainee has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (§§ 5256, 5256.1, 5262, 5270.15, 5275, 5276; see Sorenson, at pp. 423-424.) A 180-day commitment requires a court order. (§ 5301.)

Section 5150, the statute primarily at issue in this case, allows law enforcement officers and various medical professionals to bring an individual to an appropriate facility for assessment, evaluation, and treatment for up to 72 hours where there is “ ‘probable cause to believe that the person is, as a result of mental disorder, a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled.’ ” (Jacobs v. Grossmont Hospital (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 69, 74 [133 Cal.Rptr.2d 9] (Jacobs); see Coburn, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th at p. 1493.) “A broad range of personnel—including peace officers, members of the staff of the evaluation facility, designated members of a mobile crisis team, and other professional persons designated by the county—can initiate the placement of a mentally disordered person for the 72-hour evaluation.” (Coburn, at p. 1493; see Ford v. Norton (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 974, 979 [107 Cal.Rptr.2d 776] (Ford).)

When a peace officer takes a person into custody under section 5150 and presents that person to a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, the officer must provide a written application describing the circumstances that brought the person’s condition to the officer’s attention and stating the officer “has probable cause to believe that the person is, as a result of a mental health disorder, a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled.” (§5150, subd. (e).) In determining whether there is probable cause, a person authorized to make that determination may consider ‘“available relevant information about the historical course of the person’s mental disorder” (§ 5150.05, subd. (a)) and ‘“shall not be limited to consideration of the danger of imminent harm” (§ 5150, subd. (b)).

Before admitting a person into a designated facility, ‘“the professional person in charge of the facility or his or her designee shall assess the individual in person to determine the appropriateness of the involuntary detention.” (§ 5151.) ‘“If, in the judgment of the professional person in charge of the facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment [or other authorized individuals], the person cannot be properly served without being detained, the admitting facility shall require an application in writing stating the circumstances under which the person’s condition was called to the [facility’s] attention . . . and stating that [the facility] has probable cause [to detain the person].” (§5150, subd. (e).) ‘“Once admitted to a facility for a 72-hour detention, the detainee ‘shall receive an evaluation as soon after he or she is admitted as possible.’ (§5152, subd. (a); see §5008, subd. (a) [‘evaluation’ defined].) In addition, the detainee ‘shall receive whatever treatment and care his or her condition requires for the full period that he or she is held.’ (§ 5152, subd. (a).) A person subject to 72-hour detention can be released early, released after the lapse of 72 hours, certified for an additional 14 days of intensive treatment, or placed under the control of an appointed conservator. (§§5152, subds. (a) & (b), 5250.) An early release from a 72-hour commitment may occur ‘only if . . . the psychiatrist directly responsible for the person’s treatment believes, as a result of his or her personal observations, that the person no longer requires evaluation or treatment.’ (§§ 5152, subd. (a) [mentally disordered persons], 5172 . . . [inebriated persons].)” (Coburn, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th at p. 1493; see Ford, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 979.)

‘“Consistent with the goals of the [Act], the decision to detain a person involuntarily for 72 hours requires the careful exercise of judgment in evaluating whether, as a result of mental disorder, a person poses a danger to others, or to himself or herself.” (Jacobs, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at pp. 75-76.) Section 5278 provides immunity to individuals who exercise this authority in accordance with the law. This immunity ‘“allows individuals authorized to detain a person for 72-hour treatment and evaluation to make that decision without fear of exposure to criminal or civil liability.” (Jacobs, at p. 76.) ‘“The prospect of liability for initiating a 72-hour hold would frustrate and impede the Legislature’s intent to provide prompt evaluation and treatment for the mentally ill and to ensure public safety. Thus, the immunity of section 5278 necessarily applies to individuals or entities who make the decision to detain, when that decision is supported by probable cause.” (Ibid.; see Cruze v. National Psychiatric Services, Inc. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 48, 56 [129 Cal.Rptr.2d 65] (Cruze) [§ 5278 applies to individuals and entities].)

C. The Act Does Not Create a Private Right of Action for the Violations Alleged by Julian

Julian titled her first cause of action “Statutory Violations Against All Police and Physician and the Hospital Defendants.” In her third amended complaint Julian listed a variety of alleged violations of the Act, including that the police officers “concocted a situation and falsely reported probable cause pursuant to [sections] 5150, 5157 and 5328,” and she alleged the hospital defendants “failed to review the false statement of probable cause submitted by the police defendants and determine the obvious point that [Julian] did not meet the criteria for detention and should have been rejected immediately as required by [sections] 5150, 5150.05, and 5151.” Julian also alleged the hospital defendants failed to assess and evaluate her in accordance with sections 5150, subdivision (b), 5150.4, and 5152, subdivision (a), and failed to provide her with a written statement of her rights pursuant to section 5325. With regard to Dr. Shirazi, Julian alleged he should not have treated her because he was not designated by the hospital at that time to assess potential detainees, he failed to assess and evaluate her as soon as possible after her admission pursuant to sections 5150, subdivision (b), 5150.4, and 5152, subdivision (a), and he prescribed medication contrary to the requirements of sections 5325.2, 5326.2, 5326.5, 5327, and 5332.

The hospital defendants argue the Act does not create a private right of action for these violations. The hospital defendants (and the school defendants), however, did not raise this issue in the trial court, and the trial court’s order sustaining the hospital defendants’ demurrers did not address it. We may nevertheless consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal “ ‘when [it] involves purely a legal question which rests on an uncontraverted record which could not have been altered by the presentation of additional evidence.’ ” (Noe v. Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 316, 335 [187 Cal.Rptr.3d 836] (Noe): accord, Sanowicz v. Bacal (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1042-1043 [184 Cal.Rptr.3d 517]; Kramer v. Intuit Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 574, 578 [18 Cal.Rptr.3d 412]; see Ivanoff v. Bank of America, N.A., supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at p. 732, fn. 2 [“[although an issue not raised in the trial court is typically forfeited, we can reach a ground for demurrer not raised below if it presents a pure question of law and the parties have been given an opportunity to address it”].)

Whether the Act creates a private right of action to enforce the provisions Julian claims the defendants violated “is a pure question of law that does not turn on disputed facts or evidence.” (Noe, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 336; see Shamsian v. Department of Conservation (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 621, 631 [39 Cal.Rptr.3d 62] [“whether [a statute] . . . supports a private right of action is a question of statutory interpretation and of law for the court”].) And the hospital defendants and Julian have briefed the issue on appeal. (See, e.g., Ivanoff v. Bank of America, N.A., supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at p. 732, fn. 2 [considering a new legal issue on appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer where the court “invited supplemental letter briefs from the parties” on the issue]; Noe, at p. 336 [considering new legal issue on appeal from summary judgment where the parties fully briefed the issue].) Therefore, we consider the issue.

1. Governing Law

“A violation of a state statute does not necessarily give rise to a private cause of action. [Citation.] Instead, whether a party has a right to sue depends on whether the Legislature has ‘manifested an intent to create such a private cause of action’ under the statute. [Citations.] Such legislative intent, if any, is revealed through the language of the statute and its legislative history.” (Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 592, 596 [113 Cal.Rptr.3d 498, 236 P.3d 346] (Lu): see Noe, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 336.) “ ‘[W]e consider the statute’s language first, as it is the best indicator of whether a private right to sue exists.’ [Citation.] ‘A statute may contain “ ‘clear, understandable, unmistakable terms,’ ” which strongly and directly indicate that the Legislature intended to create a private cause of action. [Citation.] For instance, the statute may expressly state that a person has or is liable [s/c] for a cause of action for a particular violation. [Citations.] Or, more commonly, a statute may refer to a remedy or means of enforcing its substantive provisions, i.e., by way of an action.’ ” (Noe, at p. 336; see Lu. at p. 597.) If the statute does not include explicit language regarding a private right of action, but contains provisions that create some ambiguity, courts may look to legislative history “for greater insight.” (Lu, at p. 598; see Noe, at p. 336.)

“ ‘It is well settled that there is a private right of action to enforce a statute “only if the statutory language or legislative history affirmatively indicates such an intent. [Citations.] That intent need not necessarily be expressed explicitly, but if not it must be strongly implied.” ’ ” (Noe, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 337; see Lu, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 601, fn. 6 [courts will not find a private right of action unless the Legislature has “clearly manifest[ed] an intent to create a private cause of action under a statute”]; Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1131-1132 [138 Cal.Rptr.3d 130] (Thurman) [“[i]t is well settled that there is a private right of action to enforce a statute ‘only if the statutory language or legislative history affirmatively indicates such an intent’ ”].) “ ‘ “Particularly when regulatory statutes provide a comprehensive scheme for enforcement by an administrative agency, the courts ordinarily conclude that the Legislature intended the administrative remedy to be exclusive unless the statutory language or legislative history clearly indicates an intent to create a private right of action.” ’ ” (Noe, at p. 337; see Thurman, at p. 1132.)

2. Julian Did Not Allege a Violation Enforceable by a Private Right of Action Under the Act

Julian alleged the defendants violated the following provisions of the Act: sections 5150, 5150.05, 5150.4, 5151, 5152, 5325, 5325.2, 5326.2, 5326.5, 5327, 5328, and 5332. None of these statutes includes “clear, understandable, unmistakable terms” that “strongly and directly indicate that the Legislature intended to create a private cause of action” for the violations Julian alleged. (See Lu, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 597; Noe, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 336.)

Section 5150 expressly creates a private cause of action against a person who intentionally provides a knowingly false statement on which probable cause is based, but only against a person who (unlike a police officer or medical professional) is not authorized to detain someone under section 5150. (§ 5150, subd. (e).) Section 5150.05 recognizes a similar, limited cause of action. (§ 5150.05, subd. (c).) Julian did not sue any person other than a peace officer or medical professional for providing false information on which probable cause to detain her was based.

Sections 5150.4 and 5151 define “assessment,” require the professional person in charge of a facility or his or her designee to assess an individual in person before admitting that individual to the facility, and specify that an individual admitted under section 5150 may be held for 72 hours. These provisions do not refer to or expressly create any cause of action. Section 5152, subdivision (a), requires each person admitted to a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation to receive an evaluation “as soon as possible after he or she is admitted.” Julian alleged this did not happen in her case, but neither subdivision (a) of section 5152 nor the other provisions of that section refer to or expressly create a cause of action.

Sections 5325 and 5327 establish and declare certain legal and civil rights of persons involuntarily detained under section 5150 and require facilities that provide evaluation and treatment to post a list of those rights in a prominent place. Among the rights established by section 5325 are the rights for a patient to wear his or her own clothes, to keep and use his or her personal possessions, to see visitors, to have reasonable access to telephones, and to refuse convulsive treatment. (§ 5325, subds. (a)-(f).) Section 5327 states that every person involuntarily detained under the Act is entitled to these rights and “shall retain all rights not specifically denied him.” Neither section 5325 nor section 5327 refers to or expressly creates a private cause of action.

Sections 5326.2 and 5326.5 define “voluntary informed consent” and “written informed consent” with regard to treatment and treatment options. Neither provision refers to or expressly creates a cause of action.

Section 5328 provides that all information and records obtained in the course of providing services under the Act are confidential and prescribes the circumstances in which such information may be disclosed. Section 5328 does not create a private cause of action. Section 5330 does create a private right of action for damages against an individual who willfully and knowingly releases confidential information or records concerning him or her in violation of the Act, but Julian neither identifies this section as a basis for her cause of action nor alleges the police defendants (who she alleges violated § 5328) willfully and knowingly disclosed any confidential information about her.

Finally, section 5332 sets forth the circumstances in which antipsychotic medication may be administered to a person involuntarily detained under section 5150. Again, this section neither refers to nor expressly creates a private right of action, and Julian does not allege she was actually administered any medication by the hospital defendants.

None of these provisions suggests an unmistakable legislative intent to create a private cause of action for any of the statutory violations Julian alleged. (See Lu, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 598 [concluding the statutory language in that case did not “ ‘ “unmistakably]” ’ reveal a legislative intent to provide ... a private right to sue”].) A court may still find a private cause of action if the Act contains provisions creating some ambiguity regarding whether the Legislature intended to create a private right of action and the Act’s legislative history affirmatively indicates such an intent. (See Lu, at p. 598; Noe, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at pp. 336-337.) Julian, however, does not point to any such ambiguity in the relevant provisions of the Act or cite any such legislative history.

Julian argues the rights created by the Act “must be enforceable to be meaningful” and the statute’s reference to a patient’s attorney “27 times” in sections 5325 through 5337 “contemplates private enforcement.” As noted, some provisions of the Act do create a private right of action, such as section 5150, subdivision (e), and section 5150.05, subdivision (c). These provisions, along with sections 5203, 5259.1, 5265, 5270.40, and 5330, create causes of action in specific circumstances not relevant here. Significantly, the fact the Legislature established private rights of action to remedy violations of these provisions, but not for violations of the provisions Julian alleged the defendants violated, is a strong indication Julian does not have a private right of action for her claims under the Act. (See Rosales v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 419, 427-428 [98 Cal.Rptr.2d 144] [statutory scheme governing disclosure of police personnel records did not create a private right of action where the Legislature did not include such a right in the statute but did create private rights of action in similar contexts in other statutes (including § 5330)]; see also Rosales, at p. 428 [“[g]iven the comprehensiveness of the statutory scheme, the Legislature could have easily provided a remedy if one was intended”].)

In addition, the Act provides a means of enforcing the provisions Julian alleged the defendants violated, but not through a private cause of action. Instead, the Act sets forth a comprehensive scheme for its enforcement by the local director of mental health, the Director of Health Care Services, or the Director of State Hospitals, who may issue notices of violation to offending facilities, revoke a facility’s designation and authorization to evaluate and treat persons detained involuntarily, and refer legal violations to a local district attorney or the Attorney General for prosecution. (See § 5326.9.) When legislation provides a comprehensive regulatory scheme for its enforcement, courts generally conclude the Legislature intended that remedy to be exclusive, unless the statutory language or legislative history “ ‘ “clearly indicates an intent to create a private right of action.” ’ ” (Noe, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 337; see Thurman, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 1132; see also County of San Diego v. State of California (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 580, 610-611 [79 Cal.Rptr.3d 489] [“[generally, when a new right is created by statute, a party aggrieved by violation of the statute is limited to the statutory remedy if one is provided”].) Again, the statutes Julian cites have no such language or expression of legislative intent.

Moreover, aggrieved individuals can enforce the Act’s provisions through other common law and statutory causes of action, such as negligence, medical malpractice, false imprisonment, assault, battery, declaratory relief, United States Code section 1983 for constitutional violations, and Civil Code section 52.1. (See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Paradise Valley Hospital (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 735 [3 Cal.Rptr.3d 903] (Gonzalez) [negligence against a hospital and doctor arising out of the death of a detainee during an involuntary 72-hour hold under §5150]; Jacobs, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 80 [negligence against hospital for injuries sustained in a trip and fall incident during a 72-hour hold under § 5150]; Ford, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 984 [malpractice against medical professionals who released the plaintiff before the end of the 72-hour period under the Act]; Riese v. St. Mary’s Hospital & Medical Center (1987) 209 Cal.App.3d 1303 [271 Cal.Rptr. 199] [class action seeking a declaration that patients involuntarily committed to mental health facilities must give informed consent to the use of antipsychotic drugs]; Hall v. City of Fremont (9th Cir. 2013) 520 Fed. Appx. 609 [assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false arrest and imprisonment, and violation of United States Code § 1983 arising out of a detention under §5150]; see also Jackson v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1322-1323 [‘“the involuntary hospitalization in a mental institution ‘in violation of [a predecessor of the Act] constitutes false imprisonment,’ ” and ‘“the use of force to accomplish an unlawful detention can give rise to liability for assault and battery” (italics omitted)].) Thus, the absence of a private right of action to enforce the provisions of the Act Julian alleged the defendants violated did not leave her without remedies for those alleged violations. (See Lu, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 603; cf. Skov v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 690, 698 [143 Cal.Rptr.3d 694] [recognizing a private right of action under Civ. Code, § 2923.5 where, “unlike in Lu, there are no statutes which provide either a penalty for noncompliance with section 2923.5 or designate any administrative agency with enforcement of the statute”].)

Julian is correct that sections 5325 through 5337 refer to a patient’s attorney numerous times, but only in contexts not relevant to Julian’s claims. For example, section 5326.7 addresses the role of a patient’s attorney in providing informed consent for convulsive treatments, and sections 5333 and 5334 concern capacity hearings to determine whether a patient should be administered antipsychotic medication against his or her will. Sections 5328 and 5326.1 address circumstances in which a patient’s attorney may be authorized to receive a patient’s confidential information and treatment records. None of these provisions implies a legislative intent to create a private right of action to enforce any provision of the Act Julian alleged the defendants violated. Nor has Julian cited anything in the legislative history of the Act that suggests private persons may enforce those provisions.

Because the Act does not create a private right of action for violations of the provisions Julian alleged the defendants violated, she is not entitled to maintain her first cause of action for violations of the Act against any of the defendants. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting the school defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on the first cause of action or in sustaining without leave to amend the hospital defendants’ demurrers to that cause of action.

D. The Trial Court Properly Granted the School Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Julian’s Civil Rights Claims

1. Federal Civil Rights Claim

Julian’s second cause of action alleged the school defendants violated her civil rights under the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments. The trial court granted the school defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on this cause of action, ruling they were entitled to qualified immunity for their “on-the-job judgment calls” and Julian failed to “point to published, disposi-tive case law that states ‘a clearly established rule prohibiting the officer from acting as he did . . . [i]n the circumstances presented to [the] officer.’ ” The trial court also concluded undisputed evidence supported the school defendants’ actions in placing Julian on a 72-hour hold under section 5150. Julian argues the trial court erred because there are triable issues of material fact regarding whether the school defendants had probable cause to detain her. According to Julian, “[t]here is a long list of controverted facts about whether anyone could rationally suspect [she] was acting bizarrely under the circumstances such that it warranted a review by a psychiatric facility to determine whether she was mentally disordered.”

a. Governing law

“Title 42 United States Code section 1983 provides in relevant part: ‘Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . ” (Arce v. Childrens Hospital Los Angeles (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1455, 1472 [150 Cal.Rptr.3d 735].) “ ‘To state a claim under [section] 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.’ [Citation.] ‘ “State courts look to federal law to determine what conduct will support an action under section 1983. [Citation.]” ’ [Citation.] ‘The threshold inquiry [in analyzing a section 1983 claim] is whether the evidence establishes that appellants have been deprived of a constitutional right.’ ” (Arce, at pp. 1472-1473.)

“[A] state is not a ‘person’ as that term is used in section 1983 . . . .” (Pierce v. San Mateo County Sheriff’s Dept. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 995, 1007 [181 Cal.Rptr.3d 816] (Pierce); see Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police (1989) 491 U.S. 58, 71 [105 L.Ed.2d 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304].) Whether a government unit is considered an arm of the state is a federal question, “although one ‘dependent on an analysis of state law.’ ” (Pierce, at p. 1009; see McMillian v. Monroe County (1997) 520 U.S. 781, 786 [138 L.Ed.2d 1, 117 S.Ct. 1734].)

Cities, counties, and local officers sued in their official capacity are “persons” for purposes of United States Code section 1983 and, “although they cannot be held vicariously liable under section 1983 for their subordinate officers’ unlawful acts, they may be held directly liable for constitutional violations carried out under their own regulations, policies, customs, or usages by persons having ‘final policymaking authority’ over the actions at issue.” (Venegas v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, 829 [11 Cal.Rptr.3d 692, 87 P.3d 1] (Venegas); see McMillian v. Monroe County, supra, 520 U.S. at pp. 784-785; Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services (1978) 436 U.S. 658, 690-692 [56 L.Ed.2d 611, 98 S.Ct. 2018] (Monell).) Such actions “are commonly referred to as ‘policy or custom’ section 1983 cases against local governmental entities and local officials acting in their official capacity.” (Pierce, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 1007.)

Officers of a state, city, or county sued in their individual capacity may be liable under United States Code section 1983 for violating an individual’s constitutional rights. (Venegas, supra, 32 Cal.4th at pp. 829, 839.) Qualified immunity, however, “shields public officers from section 1983 actions unless the officer has violated a clearly established constitutional right” (Mendoza v. City of West Covina (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 702, 711 [141 Cal.Rptr.3d 553] (Mendoza)), which does not include circumstances in which “reasonable officers in their position would have believed their actions were lawful under established law” (Venegas, at p. 839). (See Saucier v. Katz (2001) 533 U.S. 194, 201 [150 L.Ed.2d 272, 121 S.Ct. 2151] (Saucier), overruled on other grounds in Pearson v. Callahan (2009) 555 U.S. 223, 236 [172 L.Ed.2d 565, 129 S.Ct. 808] (Pearson).)

“In resolving questions of qualified immunity at summary judgment, courts engage in a two-pronged inquiry.” (Tolan v. Cotton (2014) 572 U.S. _, _ [188 L.Ed.2d 895, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1865].) “First, ‘[t]aken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right’ [Citation.] ‘If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established,’ then the qualified immunity inquiry ends. [Citation.] However, ‘if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established. This inquiry, it is vital to note, must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad, general proposition . . . .’ ” (Mendoza, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at p. 711; see Tolan v. Cotton, supra, 572 U.S. at p. _ [134 S.Ct. at pp. 1865-1866].) The “first step analyzes whether a constitutional right was violated, which is a question of fact. The second examines whether the right was clearly established, which is a question of law. Step two serves the aim of refining the legal standard and is solely a question of law for the judge.” (Tortu v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept. (9th Cir. 2009) 556 F.3d 1075, 1085; see Dunn v. Castro (9th Cir. 2010) 621 F.3d 1196, 1199.)

“A right is clearly established only if its contours are sufficiently clear that ‘a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’ [Citation.] In other words, ‘existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.’ [Citation.] This doctrine ‘gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments ....’” (Carroll v. Carman (2014) 574 U.S. _,_ [190 L.Ed.2d 311, 135 S.Ct. 348, 350]; see Saucier, supra, 533 U.S. at pp. 202, 206; Marshall v. County of San Diego (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1108 [190 Cal.Rptr.3d 97].) “When properly applied, [qualified immunity] protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’ ” (Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (2011) 563 U.S. 731, 743 [179 L.Ed.2d 1149, 131 S.Ct. 2074] (Ashcroftf, see Carroll, 574 U.S. at p. _ [135 S.Ct. at p. 350]; see Marshall, at p. 1108.)

“[C]ourts have discretion to decide which of the two prongs of qualified-immunity analysis to tackle first.” (Ashcroft, supra, 563 U.S. at p. 735; see Mendoza, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at p. 711, fn. 9.) And “[c]ourts should think carefully before expending ‘scarce judicial resources’ to resolve difficult and novel questions of constitutional or statutory interpretation that will ‘have no effect on the outcome of the case’ ” (Ashcroft, at p. 735), especially in “cases in which the briefing of constitutional questions is woefully inadequate” (Pearson, supra, 555 U.S. at p. 239).

Although the United States Supreme Court has left “open the issue of the burden of persuasion . . . with respect to a defense of qualified immunity” (Gomez v. Toledo (1980) 446 U.S. 635, 642 [64 L.Ed.2d 572, 100 S.Ct. 1920] (cone. opn. of Rehnquist, J.)), the federal courts of appeal generally agree that, on a defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff “bears the burden of showing that the right at issue was clearly established.” (Alston v. Read (9th Cir. 2011) 663 F.3d 1094, 1098; see, e.g., Keith v. Koerner (10th Cir. 2016) 843 F.3d 833, 837; Mendez v. Poitevent (5th Cir. 2016) 823 F.3d 326, 331; Rivera-Corraliza v. Morales (1st Cir. 2015) 794 F.3d 208, 214; Hess v. Ables (8th Cir. 2013) 714 F.3d 1048, 1051; Morton v. Kirkwood (11th Cir. 2013) 707 F.3d 1276, 1280-1281; Donahue v. Gavin (3d Cir. 2002) 280 F.3d 371, 378; Sledd v. Lindsay (7th Cir. 1996) 102 F.3d 282, 287.)

b. Julian did not state a section 1983 claim for constitutional violations against the LAUSD or LAUSP

Julian does not argue FAUSD and FAUSP are local government units subject to liability under United States Code section 1983 for their policies or customs rather than state agencies that are not “persons” under the statute. Indeed, state and federal courts have uniformly held that California school districts, including FAUSD, are state agencies and thus not “persons” for purposes of section 1983. (See, e.g., McAllister v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1198, 1207 [157 Cal.Rptr.3d 720] (McAllister); Kirchmann v. Lake Elsinore Unified School Dist. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1115 [100 Cal.Rptr.2d 289]; C.W. v. Capistrano Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2015) 784 F.3d 1237, 1247; Belanger v. Madera Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 1992) 963 F.2d 248, 253; Sedo v. Orange County Dept. of Education (C.D.Cal., July 6, 2015, No. SACV 15-00311-JLS (JCGx)) 2015 WL 4078195, p. *5 [citing cases].) Julian alleges, and FAUSD concedes, FAUSP “is a division of the FAUSD.” Thus, it also operates as an arm of the state and is not a “person” under section 1983.

Even if the FAUSD and FAUSP were “persons” for purposes of United States Code section 1983, Julian did not state a claim against them. Government entities are liable under section 1983 only where their “regulations, policies, customs, or usages by persons having ‘final policymaking authority’ ” violate another’s constitutional rights. (Venegas, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 829; see Monell, supra, 436 U.S. 658 at pp. 690-692.) Julian’s third amended complaint did not identify any such regulation, policy, or custom that allegedly violated the constitutional rights Julian identifies. Therefore, the trial court properly granted summary adjudication on this cause of action against LAUSD and LAUSP.

c. Julian did not state a United States Code section 1983 claim for constitutional violations against the individual police defendants

Julian alleged three federal constitutional violations against the individual police defendants. They were (1) violation of her First Amendment right “to speak out about the wrongful actions of the police department without being coerced into silence by means of falsely labeling her as a person with a mental disorder and dangerous”; (2) violation of her Fourth Amendment right “to be free from seizure and or detention absent a warrant or other established legal justification properly applied”; and (3) violation of her ‘'Unenumerated Ninth Amendment right ... to be properly cared for by physicians when in custody.”

With regard to the alleged First Amendment violation, Julian alleged no facts suggesting she was ever “silence[dj.” In fact, Julian alleged and the uncontested evidence showed she spoke and even screamed throughout much of her encounter with the police defendants. With respect to Julian’s alleged Ninth Amendment violation, Julian cites no case establishing a right under that constitutional provision “to be properly cared for by physicians when in custody.” In any event, it is unclear how the police defendants, who Julian did not allege are physicians or acted as physicians under the color of law, could have violated any such right.

Julian did have a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to be free from involuntary detention without probable cause. (Bias v. Moynihan (9th. Cir. 2007) 508 F.3d 1212, 1220 (Bias); see People v. Triplett (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 283, 287 & fn. 6 [192 Cal.Rptr. 537] (Triplett) [involuntary detention pursuant to §5150 without probable cause may violate the 4th Amend.].) Therefore, the issue is whether the undisputed facts demonstrated that a reasonable officer would have believed there was probable cause to detain Julian under section 5150. (See Bias, at pp. 1219-1220.)

“Probable cause exists under section 5150 if facts are known to the officer ‘that would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to believe, or to entertain a strong suspicion, that the person detained is mentally disordered and is a danger to himself or herself.’ ” (Bias, supra, 508 F.3d at p. 1220; see Heater v. Southwood Psychiatric Center, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 1080; Triplett, supra, 144 Cal.App.3d at pp. 287-288.) “To justify the detention, the officer must point to ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant his or her belief or suspicion.’ ” (Bias, at p. 1220; see Triplett, at p. 288.) “ ‘Each case must be decided on the facts and circumstances presented to the officer at the time of the detention and the officer is justified in taking into account the past conduct, character, and reputation of the detainee.’ ” (Bias, at p. 1220; see Triplett, at pp. 287, fn. 6, 288.) In determining whether there is probable cause, “[a] peace officer ... is not required to make a medical diagnosis of mental disorder. It is sufficient if the officer, as a lay person, can articulate behavioral symptoms of mental disorder .... [Gjenerally, mental disorder might be exhibited if a person’s thought processes, as evidenced by words or actions or emotional affect, are bizarre or inappropriate for the circumstances.” (Triplett, at p. 288.)

Here, prior to detaining Julian, Sergeant Taylor learned Julian had told a close friend she was going to slit her wrists, Julian had marks on her wrists Sergeant Taylor believed may have evidenced previous suicide attempts, and Julian could be suicidal. Because he was aware Julian disliked Officer Valencia, Sergeant Taylor and Castro agreed to approach Julian without Officer Valencia. When they did, Julian dropped to the floor and screamed “get away from me,” even though Castro told her they were there only to get a statement from her about the assault she had reported. Sergeant Taylor asked Julian to calm down and told her she was safe, but she began screaming “even louder.” Sergeant Taylor called for an ambulance because he had concluded Julian was a danger to herself and the children and employees at the school. The application for a 72-hour detention that Officer Valencia presented to the hospital summarized these facts, stating Julian “went out of control” when the school police approached her about a criminal investigation, had previously “made statements to [anjother school staff member that she wanted to cut her wrist,” and had “6 to 8 cuts” on her wrists.

These uncontested facts support a finding of probable cause. (See Triplett, supra, 144 Cal.App.3d at p. 288 [“obvious physical signs of a recent suicide attempt” coupled with the detainee’s intoxication and “tearful” condition “would lead any person of ordinary care and prudence to believe that [the detainee] as a result of mental disorder was a danger to herself’]; Bias, supra, 508 F.3d at p. 1221 [probable cause existed where the detainee alluded to suicide and paranoid thoughts, and later “became combative” and grabbed an officer while appearing “visibly angry” and “agitated”]; Palter v. City of Garden Grove, supra, 237 Fed. Appx. at p. 172 [probable cause existed where a neighbor told an officer the detainee alluded to suicide, had a gun, and was going to his daughter’s home to leave a “goodbye” note, even though the detainee told the officer he did not intend to hurt himself and did not have a gun].) “Probable cause does not mean certain cause, and the purpose of the psychiatric evaluation [under section 5150] is to have professionals skilled at evaluating mental state take some responsibility for assessing whether [a detainee] was in danger.” (Palter, at p. 172.) Sergeant Taylor had probable cause under the totality of the circumstances to believe Julian was a danger to herself and others and to detain her so that medical professionals could assess her.

Julian argues that “a long list of controverted facts” precluded summary judgment. For example, she points out Castro had “discounted” the text message Ibrahim sent to Castro stating that Julian wanted to “slit her wrists.” Julian, however, does not dispute Castro shared the text message with an LAUSD crisis counselor who in turn shared it with Sergeant Taylor, nor does Julian dispute Sergeant Taylor properly took that text message into account in determining whether there was probable cause to detain Julian. (See Bias, supra, 508 F.3d at p. 1220 [in determining probable cause, an officer may consider the detainee’s past conduct, character, and reputation]; accord, Triplett, supra, 144 Cal.App.3d at pp. 287-288 & fn. 6.) Even if Castro discounted the text message, that did not preclude Sergeant Taylor from taking the text message into account in evaluating Julian’s mental state. And Castro did not entirely discount Julian’s text; she told LAUSD’s crisis counselor about it despite having previously concluded Julian was not suicidal. (See Bias, at p. 1219 [rejecting the detainee’s argument that the court should construe a letter stating “ T shall kill myself’ ” as hyperbole because the statement was not presented as a joke or a figure of speech].)

Similarly, Julian repeatedly relies on her assertion the scratches on her arms were made by her cats and were not evidence of past suicide attempts. While Julian might have known the scratches were from her cats, she presented no evidence Castro, LAUSD’s crisis counselor, or Sergeant Taylor knew they were. And Julian could have said her cats scratched her and actually made the marks herself. Indeed, a person of ordinary care and prudence easily could have concluded or entertained a strong suspicion the scratches were “ ‘hesitation marks,’ ” which result “when a person contemplating suicide cuts his or her wrist to see how much pain is involved.” (Triplett, supra, 144 Cal.App.3d at p. 285; see People v. Lightsey (2012) 54 Cal.4th 668, 675 [143 Cal.Rptr.3d 589, 279 P.3d 1072] [“superficial ‘hesitation wounds’ ” indicated the decedent may have committed suicide]; People v. Steele (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1230, 1275 [120 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 47 P.3d 225] [wounds indicating hesitation