Nickerson v. Broomfield

Background

Michael V. Nickerson, a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Warden and CEO of San Quentin State Prison (SQSP), the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), SQSP, and CDCR. The court previously dismissed his original complaint with leave to amend, and Nickerson filed an amended complaint.

Claims and screening decision

The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint against governmental entities or officials. At this stage, the court must identify claims that are legally sufficient and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Nickerson alleged that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to unsafe conditions at SQSP. He identified old, unventilated buildings; inadequate personal protective equipment; insufficient room for social distancing; testing-protocol concerns; overcrowding; and the transfer of 121 inmates from Chino Prison on May 31, 2020, including some inmates allegedly known to have COVID-19. He alleged that he later tested positive and experienced headaches, breathing problems, sleep problems, sore joints, swollen legs, and continuing post-COVID complications. He also alleged that officials did not act until inmates began dying and that his requests for protective equipment and release from prison were denied.

The court liberally construed the amended complaint and held that Nickerson stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim based on unsafe conditions at SQSP due to COVID-19. This was a screening determination that the claim could proceed; the order did not decide the ultimate merits of the claim.

Orders

The action was ordered to proceed on the Eighth Amendment claim against Ron Broomfield, Warden of SQSP; Jackie Clark, CEO of SQSP; and Kathleen Allison, Director of the CDCR. The clerk was directed to begin service through the CDCR electronic-service program, with service by the United States Marshals Service for defendants who did not waive service.

Defendants were ordered to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claim no later than 91 days after the order was filed. The order stated that any summary-judgment motion must comply with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that summary judgment or qualified immunity could not be granted if material facts were disputed. Nickerson’s opposition was due 28 days after the motion, and defendants’ reply was due 14 days after the opposition. The order also permitted discovery and instructed Nickerson about serving court communications, prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes, and requesting extensions of time.