Kidd v. Broomfield
- Joseph Spero
- 3:20-cv-08694
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Kidd v. Broomfield, Chief Magistrate Judge Spero found a prisoner’s COVID-19 safety claim cognizable and ordered service and further proceedings.
Mark Dewaine Kidd’s Eighth Amendment claim against Ron Broomfield was allowed to proceed past initial screening; Broomfield was ordered to be served and respond.
What happened
In Kidd v. Broomfield, Mark Dewaine Kidd alleged that Ron Broomfield, the warden at San Quentin State Prison, failed to take adequate precautions against COVID-19, causing Kidd to contract the virus. The court found that these allegations could support a claim that Broomfield was deliberately indifferent to Kidd’s safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The court’s initial review allowed the claim to proceed. It ordered that Broomfield be served and directed the defense to file a summary-judgment motion or another motion resolving the claim by July 14, 2021. The court also set deadlines for Kidd’s response and the defense reply, and allowed discovery.
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero issued the order on April 13, 2021. The order was not a final decision on whether Kidd would ultimately win; it determined only that the complaint stated a claim that could proceed past initial screening.
The detailed version
- Kidd v. Broomfield · No. 3:20-cv-08694
- Joseph Spero
- Apr. 13, 2021
Background
Mark Dewaine Kidd filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Ron Broomfield, identified as the warden at San Quentin State Prison. Kidd alleged that prison personnel failed to take adequate precautions to limit the spread of COVID-19 and that he contracted the virus as a result.
Initial Screening
Because Kidd was proceeding without a lawyer, the court liberally construed his allegations. During the required initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought money damages from an immune defendant.
To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right secured by federal law or the Constitution and conduct by a person acting under color of state law. The court concluded that, when liberally construed, Kidd’s allegations stated a cognizable claim that Broomfield was deliberately indifferent to Kidd’s safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Order
The court ordered that Broomfield be served at San Quentin State Prison through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. It directed the defense to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claim by July 14, 2021. The order specified that any exhaustion-based motion had to be filed as a summary-judgment motion, and it set deadlines for Kidd’s opposition and the defense reply.
The court allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, required Kidd to serve copies of his court communications on the defense, and reminded him that he was responsible for prosecuting the case and keeping the court informed of any address change. The court also required the defense to provide a specified notice if it filed a summary-judgment motion. Kidd had consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction.
Effect of the Order
The order allowed Kidd’s claim to proceed beyond initial screening and initiated service and further case proceedings. It did not decide the ultimate merits of the claim or enter judgment for either side.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.