Hampton v. State of California

Background

Michael Hampton, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, died on September 25, 2020, after contracting COVID-19. His widow sued the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, San Quentin, and ten officials. The operative complaint asserted five claims: deliberate indifference to unsafe prison conditions and interference with familial association under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; supervisory liability under § 1983; violations of California’s Bane Act; violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; and negligence.

The complaint alleged that officials transferred 122 inmates from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin on May 30, 2020, when the former facility had 600 COVID-19 cases and nine deaths while San Quentin had no reported cases. The transferred inmates allegedly were medically vulnerable, had not been tested for weeks, and were transported in overcrowded buses. They were housed with existing San Quentin inmates in a unit with shared facilities. Within days, 25 transferees tested positive, and the complaint alleged that the resulting outbreak spread throughout the prison.

The plaintiff alleged that officials knew the risks of COVID-19 and disregarded recommendations involving separation of transferred inmates, masks, testing, protective equipment, social distancing, quarantine, and other safety measures. The complaint also alleged that Hampton had risk factors including age, obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, prediabetes, and sleep apnea; developed COVID-19 symptoms; was hospitalized with COVID-19 and pneumonia; and died after a prolonged decline.

Motion to Dismiss Standard

The defendants moved to dismiss on several grounds. They argued that the individual defendants had qualified immunity because the complaint did not adequately allege a constitutional violation or a clearly established right; that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP Act, provided immunity for pandemic-related decisions; that the disability claims were not plausibly pleaded; and that statutory immunities barred the state-law claims.

At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court accepted well-pleaded allegations as true and asked whether the complaint stated claims that were plausible, meaning supported by enough factual content to permit a reasonable inference of liability. The court emphasized that disputed facts generally could not be resolved at this stage.

Rulings

The court dismissed the claims against Ralph Diaz without prejudice because the complaint did not allege facts showing his personal knowledge of the relevant risks. The court otherwise found that the remaining defendants affiliated with San Quentin or the California Institution for Men were plausibly alleged to have known about the transfer risks and to have personally participated in, failed to prevent, or acquiesced in the alleged constitutional violations.

The court denied qualified immunity at the pleading stage. It held that factual disputes existed about the federal receiver’s involvement in the transfer and the alleged mishandling of it. The court also concluded that prison officials could not be deliberately indifferent to inmates’ exposure to a serious communicable disease, distinguishing a prior case involving Valley Fever.

The court denied the defendants’ PREP Act argument. The plaintiff plausibly alleged that Hampton’s death resulted from a botched transfer and failures to use basic safety measures, including measures that were not covered countermeasures under the Act. The court also noted factual disputes about whether officials purposefully allocated covered countermeasures or instead failed to act.

The court dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claim against all defendants without prejudice and with leave to amend. It found that the complaint plausibly alleged Hampton’s disability, but did not plausibly allege that defendants intentionally discriminated against him. In particular, the complaint did not allege facts showing that defendants had notice of his disability and the accommodations he needed. The court did not set an amendment deadline.

The court declined to resolve immunity issues concerning the Bane Act and negligence claims because the relevant facts, including whether the challenged acts were discretionary, were disputed. The court therefore otherwise denied the motion to dismiss.

Disposition

The court dismissed the claims against Ralph Diaz and the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claim against all defendants without prejudice. It otherwise denied the motion to dismiss. The opinion was signed by Laurel Beeler, United States Magistrate Judge.