Crittenden v. Diaz

Background

Steve Crittenden, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Ralph Diaz, former Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; Warden Rob Broomfield of San Quentin State Prison; Dr. R. Steven Tharratt; the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and San Quentin State Prison. The opinion states that Crittenden's request to proceed without paying the filing fee would be addressed in a separate order.

Crittenden alleged that during the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Tharratt ordered the transfer of more than 100 COVID-19-positive prisoners, including prisoners transferred from the California Institution for Men in Chino to San Quentin State Prison. He alleged that Diaz and Broomfield supported the transfer even though the prisoners had not been tested within the preceding three weeks. Crittenden claimed that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference, causing him to contract COVID-19, and also described their conduct as negligence and carelessness. He sought damages.

Court's analysis

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary review of a prisoner's action seeking relief from a governmental entity or officer. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. It also stated that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state law.

The court treated Crittenden's COVID-19 allegations as implicating the Eighth Amendment right to health and safety. To state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim, a prisoner must allege both a sufficiently serious deprivation and that the official knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. The court found Crittenden's allegations insufficient because they did not specifically explain how the transfer was causally connected to his infection. The court identified as potentially relevant facts how he was exposed to infected prisoners, what safety measures the prison did or did not take, and when he tested positive. It also found that his allegation of an ongoing risk to his well-being needed more factual support.

The court ruled that negligence and gross negligence are not actionable under § 1983 in the prison context. It explained that the applicable standard is deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety. The court also instructed Crittenden that an amended complaint must identify facts showing each defendant's personal involvement or a sufficient causal connection to the alleged constitutional violation. For supervisory defendants, the court noted that liability requires personal involvement or a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the violation; conclusory allegations are not enough.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that the complaint was DISMISSED with leave to amend. Crittenden was given 28 days from the filing of the order to file an amended complaint attempting to correct the stated deficiencies. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint, and that claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the action. The court further ordered that failure to respond as required would result in dismissal with prejudice of the action for failure to state a claim. The opinion does not state that such a later dismissal had already occurred.