Ham v. Allison

Background

Bill Ham, who was housed at San Quentin State Prison, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He sued the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s director and seventeen other named defendants, including state officials and prison personnel. The complaint concerned the prison system’s handling of COVID-19 and other alleged prison conditions.

Ham alleged that California officials did not provide sufficient COVID-19 testing, that inmates were transferred from California Institute for Men to San Quentin without proper testing, and that an outbreak followed. He also alleged problems involving masks, social distancing, ventilation, medical and dental care, shower-area cleaning, toilets, and outdoor exercise.

Court’s Analysis

The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint. It explained that a complaint must give each defendant fair notice of the claim and must provide facts showing how that defendant caused the alleged constitutional violation. The court found that Ham’s allegations about the COVID-19 issues did not sufficiently identify what each defendant did or failed to do, or how each defendant acted with deliberate indifference. Allegations based only on a defendant’s supervisory position were insufficient because § 1983 does not impose liability solely because someone supervised another person.

The court said Ham’s allegations about the transfer of inmates and resulting COVID-19 outbreak were sufficient to state a claim in general, but he still needed to explain how each of the eighteen defendants was personally involved. The court also found that Ham had not provided enough information to determine whether his other claims were related to the COVID-19 claims under the rules governing joinder of claims and defendants. If he pursued those claims, he had to explain their connection to the other claims and why they belonged in the same action.

The court separately addressed exhaustion of administrative remedies. Federal law generally requires a prisoner to complete available prison grievance procedures before filing suit about prison conditions. Ham stated that he had filed one grievance concerning the “COVID-19 debacle,” but he did not explain exhaustion separately for each claim. The court therefore could not determine whether he had exhausted the required remedies before filing the action.

Disposition

The court dismissed Ham’s complaint with leave to amend. The amended complaint had to be simple, concise, and direct; identify each defendant and the specific conduct attributed to that defendant; identify the injury from each claim; explain exhaustion or the unavailability of remedies for each claim; and include only properly related claims and defendants. Ham had twenty-eight days from the date of the order to file the amended complaint using the court’s form. The order stated that failure to meet the deadline or correct the identified deficiencies would result in dismissal without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to send Ham a blank civil-rights complaint form.