Villagrana v. Kernan

Background

Ambrosio Villagrana alleged that he was incarcerated at CTF-Soledad when Stronghold Engineering, Inc. constructed a medical facility there. According to the complaint, the soil around the prison contained the fungus that causes Valley Fever, and disturbing the soil spread fungal spores into the air. Villagrana alleged that Stronghold and its chief executive officer, Beverly Bailey, knew about the risks but failed to use recommended dust-control and other safety measures. He was diagnosed with Valley Fever on December 14, 2017, and alleged continuing health problems.

Villagrana asserted two claims against Stronghold: negligence and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Stronghold acted jointly with government officials and violated the Eighth Amendment’s protection against deliberate indifference to inmate safety and health. The court previously dismissed Villagrana’s § 1983 claim against three other defendants on qualified-immunity grounds, but Stronghold filed the separate motion addressed in this order.

Legal Standard

Stronghold moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The court explained that this motion is evaluated much like a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. At this stage, the court treats the nonmoving party’s factual allegations as true and asks whether those allegations plausibly show an entitlement to legal relief. The plaintiff does not yet have to present admissible evidence proving the claim.

Negligence Claim

Stronghold argued that it owed Villagrana no legal duty to protect him from Valley Fever because it was a general contractor rather than a prison official. It also argued that Villagrana had not identified particular California workplace-safety procedures that would create such a duty. The court rejected those arguments at the pleading stage. It stated that people generally have a duty to use reasonable care and that Stronghold cited no authority establishing that general contractors are exempt from that duty in these circumstances. The court held that the allegations that Stronghold knowingly operated in a Valley Fever hot zone, knew the risks from digging, and failed to use reasonable precautions were sufficient to plead a possible duty of care.

Stronghold also argued that there was no admissible evidence connecting its conduct to Villagrana’s illness. The court held that evidentiary proof was not required at this stage. Villagrana’s allegations that Stronghold failed to implement dust-control measures, that Valley Fever infections increased during the construction period, and that Villagrana was diagnosed during that period plausibly alleged causation. The court treated Stronghold’s arguments about other possible sources of infection as factual disputes that could not be resolved on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Finally, Stronghold argued that the claims were barred by California’s two-year limitations period. Villagrana identified several possible grounds for extending the deadline, including imprisonment, the discovery rule, serious illness, and pandemic-related restrictions on access to the prison law library. The court held that the complaint did not establish on its face that the claims were untimely. In particular, Villagrana alleged that he learned of the larger prison outbreak no earlier than March 15, 2021, and filed the original complaint on April 29, 2022. The court therefore declined to dismiss the claims as time-barred.

Section 1983 Claim

Stronghold argued that the court’s earlier qualified-immunity ruling required dismissal of Villagrana’s § 1983 claim against Stronghold. The court disagreed. It explained that, under binding Ninth Circuit precedent, private defendants cannot claim qualified immunity in a § 1983 lawsuit. Because Stronghold was a private defendant, the court refused to dismiss Villagrana’s § 1983 claim on that ground.

Disposition

Judge Jon S. Tigar denied Stronghold Engineering, Inc.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The order did not resolve whether Villagrana will ultimately prevail on either claim; it held only that Stronghold had not shown that the claims should be dismissed at the pleading stage.