Johnson v. Davis

Background

Paul David Johnson, a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named Ron Davis, Ronald Broomfield, Matt Verdier, and T. Allen as defendants. Johnson alleged that prisoners transferred from Chino State Prison to San Quentin State Prison included prisoners who were positive for COVID-19, exposing San Quentin prisoners and staff to the virus. He alleged that he tested positive on June 29, 2020, and claimed that the transfer violated his Eighth Amendment rights.

Johnson sought damages, an investigation, punishment of staff members found responsible, and mental-health assistance. He also moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction requiring San Quentin officials to place him in single-cell housing and hire a specialist to evaluate his symptoms, including problems involving his right knee.

Screening of the Complaint

Because Johnson was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state law.

The court treated Johnson’s claim as one for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under the Eighth Amendment. It held that Johnson had not adequately stated that claim against any defendant.

As to Supervisor Davis, the court found that Johnson described Davis’s conduct as negligence. Negligence or gross negligence is not enough to establish deliberate indifference. Johnson also did not allege that Davis knew the prisoners arriving from Chino carried COVID-19, or that Davis had authority to cancel the transfer, change how it was conducted, or manage San Quentin’s response afterward.

As to Warden Broomfield, Chief Deputy Warden Allen, and Chief Executive Officer Verdier, the court found that Johnson did not identify any action they took, or any required action they failed to take, that contributed to his exposure to COVID-19. The court therefore found no alleged personal involvement or causal connection supporting liability against those defendants.

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend in part. Johnson was permitted to amend only his Eighth Amendment damages claim against Davis, Broomfield, Allen, and Verdier. He was not permitted to amend his requests for injunctive relief because the requested investigation, punishment of officials, and mental-health assistance were beyond the court’s authority as presented. The court noted that a claim about denial of mental-health care would have to proceed in a separate action.

Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

The court denied Johnson’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. For an emergency order issued without notice to the opposing parties, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) requires specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable harm will occur before the opposing parties can respond, along with a written explanation of efforts to provide notice and why notice should not be required. The court found that Johnson did not satisfy those requirements.

The court also found that Johnson had not shown a likely future injury requiring emergency relief. He had already contracted COVID-19 and did not explain why a second infection was likely or would cause additional injury. The request for an evaluation of his symptoms and right knee also did not relate to the claims in the complaint, which did not mention those conditions.

Because Johnson did not identify a defendant against whom the underlying claim could proceed, the court also found that he had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or satisfied the other requirements for preliminary injunctive relief. The court therefore denied the temporary restraining order motion.

Disposition

The court ordered that Johnson could file an amended complaint within 35 days alleging facts supporting a damages claim. It warned that failure to file a proper amended complaint could result in a finding that further leave to amend would be futile and dismissal of the action. The court denied the temporary restraining order motion. It also directed the Clerk to terminate Johnson’s request for a docket copy because the Clerk had already provided one.

The supplied judge information identifies Edward Davila, but the opinion’s signature and docket suffix appear to indicate a different judge. That discrepancy should be checked against the original filed order.