Hart v. Kernan
- Edward Davila
- 5:19-cv-04331
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Hart v. Kernan, Judge Davila dismissed the claim against Kernan, allowed other claims to proceed, denied counsel, and ordered service.
Darron Nygene Hart’s claim against Scott Kernan was dismissed, while Hart’s cognizable claims against other defendants continued. T. Wheeler and Waheed Ibrahimi were directed to receive service, and the defendants were ordered to address the remaining claims.
What happened
In Hart v. Kernan, Darron Nygene Hart, a California state prisoner representing himself, claimed that unsafe leaks in his cell caused him to fall and that prison medical staff provided inadequate care afterward.
The court found that Hart had stated legally sufficient claims against several defendants for unsafe conditions and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, but dismissed the claim against Scott Kernan because Hart did not allege that Kernan personally knew of and disregarded an excessive risk. The court ordered service on T. Wheeler and Waheed Ibrahimi and required the defendants to file a motion addressing the remaining claims.
Judge Edward J. Davila denied Hart’s second request for appointed counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances; the opinion states that denial was without prejudice. The case continued on the claims the court found sufficient.
The detailed version
- Hart v. Kernan · No. 5:19-cv-04331
- Edward Davila
- July 6, 2020
Background
Darron Nygene Hart, a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers and medical staff at Salinas Valley State Prison. Hart alleged that weather-related leaks created unsafe conditions in his cell. He claimed that he slipped and fell in accumulated rainwater on January 18, 2018, injuring his head, neck, and back. He also alleged that the medical care he received afterward, including pain medication and a cane accommodation, amounted to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
Hart further alleged that officials continued to expose him to unsafe conditions and denied him safe and humane shelter. He claimed that Scott Kernan knew about dangerous weather-related conditions at several prisons and had funds to repair them but failed to act.
Screening and claims
Because Hart sought relief from government officials as a prisoner, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court concluded that, liberally construed, the amended complaint stated cognizable claims under the Eighth Amendment for exposure to unsafe conditions and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
The court dismissed the claim against Kernan for failure to state a claim. It explained that negligence or gross negligence is not enough to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. A prison official must know about and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health or safety. The court found no allegation that Kernan personally knew Hart faced such a risk and could have acted but failed to do so. The court directed the clerk to terminate Kernan from the action.
Appointment of counsel
Hart filed a second motion asking the court to appoint a lawyer. He cited indigence, limited law-library access, limited legal knowledge, and alleged interference by the prison with his efforts to obtain counsel. The court ruled that these circumstances did not distinguish Hart from similarly situated self-represented incarcerated plaintiffs and did not constitute exceptional circumstances. The court denied the motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice for lack of exceptional circumstances. The conclusion also states that the motion was denied.
Service and next steps
The court stated that all defendants had appeared through counsel except T. Wheeler and Waheed Ibrahimi. It ordered the clerk to send Wheeler and Ibrahimi the lawsuit documents and requests to waive service. It required the defendants, within 91 days after the order was filed, to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion addressing the claims found cognizable, or to notify the court that the case could not be resolved by summary judgment. The order also set deadlines for Hart’s opposition and the defendants’ reply and explained that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition
The order partially dismissed the action by dismissing the claim against Scott Kernan, denied Hart’s second motion for appointment of counsel, ordered service on Wheeler and Ibrahimi, and directed the defendants to address the remaining cognizable claims with a dispositive motion or notice. Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.