Bratton v. Broomfield

Background

Ronald Bratton filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials and staff at San Quentin State Prison. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint with permission to amend, then reopened the case after receiving his amended complaint.

Bratton alleged that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to the risk that he would contract COVID-19. He described himself as an elderly patient covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and said he was immunocompromised because of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and tuberculosis. He alleged that he repeatedly requested single-cell housing, was housed with other inmates on April 27 and June 4, 2020, and was pronounced positive for COVID-19 on June 28, 2020. He sought damages and an injunction requiring single-cell housing.

Screening of the amended complaint

The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint against government officials. To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and conduct by a person acting under state authority.

The court analyzed Bratton’s allegations as an Eighth Amendment claim concerning unsafe prison conditions. Such a claim requires a sufficiently serious deprivation and a prison official’s deliberate indifference, meaning a sufficiently culpable disregard of the risk. Even assuming Bratton satisfied the first requirement, the court found that he did not satisfy the second. The amended complaint did not describe the individual actions or failures to act of any named defendant, much less show that each defendant acted with deliberate indifference.

The court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. Bratton received one final opportunity to file a second amended complaint that describes facts showing how each named defendant caused the alleged violation. The court ordered him to file it within 28 days, using the court’s form and including the required case caption and title. The order states that failure to file a proper second amended complaint within that period will result in dismissal of the action without prejudice and without further notice. Claims or defendants omitted from the second amended complaint will no longer be part of the action.

Motion for appointment of counsel

Bratton asked the court to appoint a lawyer, citing his indigency, the complexity of the issues, the need for discovery, limited access to legal resources, and limited legal experience. The court explained that appointment of counsel in a civil case is discretionary and generally available only in exceptional circumstances. It found that Bratton’s challenges were not different from those faced by other prisoners and denied the motion without prejudice. The court stated that it could appoint counsel later if circumstances warranted it.

Emergency injunction

Bratton also moved for an emergency preliminary injunction requiring single-cell housing. A preliminary injunction is an order issued before final judgment that requires a party to take or stop taking specified action. The court found that Bratton had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits because the amended complaint did not adequately allege that any defendant caused an Eighth Amendment violation. It therefore denied the motion and did not need to address the other injunction factors. The order terminated Docket No. 15.

Ruling

Judge Beth Labson Freeman dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend, denied the motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice, and denied the motion for an emergency injunction.