Stoen in private and public practice

Stoen was only hired back to Mendo in August of 2000 to head the family support division.
Prior to that he was filing court matters that said he was practicing in Colorado.

It appears that he argued a private lawsuit while he was publicly employed by Mendocino County, indicating that he was in private practice in Colorado:

(Note - Kersti Buchanan is Stoen's wife)

1.

50 Fed. Appx. 343, *; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 22613, **

KERSTI EMELIE BUCHANAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT; MYRNA CORDER, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 99-16433

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

50 Fed. Appx. 343; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 22613

October 11, 2002, Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California  
October 29, 2002, Filed

NOTICE:  [**1] RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.

PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. CV-97-03093-MJJ(JL). Martin J. Jenkins, District Judge, Presiding.

Buchanan v. Humboldt County, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8326 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 1999).

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.
CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff county employee sued defendant employers, the county and her supervisor, under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, for injuries she received at the hands of a child housed in the temporary shelter at which she worked. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the employers. The employee appealed.

OVERVIEW: The employee claimed her injury fell within the danger-creation exception to the general rule against municipal liability for 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claims. The argument failed since the county did not create the danger of the child's violence and the employee was not misled about any risks the child presented, as she was both involved in his intake and trained on handling violent episodes. The employee also argued the act of admitting a dangerous child directly caused her injury, but § 1983 liability only attached for a single act if she showed fault and causation. She did not: the facially valid admission followed procedure and involved thorough evaluations, and the child behaved appropriately for several days before the incident, extinguishing any possibility the danger was caused by, was a foreseeable result of, admission. The county did not cause the assault, and the extensive training it provided belied deliberate indifference. Any failure to supervise at most rose to the level of negligence, removing it from the realm of a constitutional violation. The claim against her supervisor failed as it was based on inaction.

OUTCOME: Because the employee failed to show the county or her supervisor's actions resulted in a constitutional injury, the district court's judgment was affirmed.

CORE TERMS: deliberate indifference, municipal, attach, failure to supervise, undisputed facts, municipality's, supervisor, workplace, inaction

COUNSEL: For KERSTI EMELIE BUCHANAN, Plaintiff-Appellant: Timothy O. Stoen, Esq., LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY O. STOEN, Ukiah, CA.

For THE COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, MYRNA CORDER, Defendants-Appellees: John M. Vrieze, Esq., MITCHELL BRISSO DELANEY & VRIEZE, Eureka, CA.