Johnson v. Broomfield

Background

Lacedric W. Johnson, a state prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that prison officials failed to protect him from COVID-19 and failed to respond adequately to his health risks. Johnson alleged that he had previously contracted Valley Fever and had experienced leukopenia, or low white blood cell levels.

Johnson alleged that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation transferred 121 incarcerated people from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin after a COVID-19 outbreak. He alleged that some transferees later tested positive after spending six days in open housing units. Johnson claimed that he then developed serious symptoms, was hospitalized from June 11 through June 13, 2020, was diagnosed with heart failure and other COVID-19-related injuries, and was later told that he had COVID-19.

Johnson asserted three Eighth Amendment theories: exposure to hazardous conditions from overcrowding and unsanitary conditions; deliberate indifference to the risk of exposure to COVID-19; and deliberate indifference related to his COVID-19 exposure. He sought damages, including punitive damages, and declaratory relief.

Screening and Cognizable Claim

Because Johnson was a prisoner suing governmental officials, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state authority.

The court liberally construed Johnson’s complaint and held that he stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to inmate safety at San Quentin that resulted in harm. The order was a screening and service order; it did not decide the ultimate merits of that claim.

Official-Capacity Damages

Johnson sued the defendants in both their individual and official capacities. The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars claims for money damages against state officials in their official capacities because those claims are treated as claims against the state. The court therefore dismissed Johnson’s claims for damages based on defendants’ official-capacity conduct. The order states that Johnson’s claims for damages against defendants in their individual capacities could proceed.

Gavin Newsom

The only factual allegation specifically identified against Gavin Newsom was that he ignored Johnson’s April 30, 2020 request for commutation. The court found that Johnson did not allege facts showing Newsom personally knew about Johnson’s circumstances and failed to act to reduce a known risk of serious harm. The court therefore dismissed the claim against Newsom with leave to amend. Johnson was given 28 days from the filing of the order to file an amended complaint alleging sufficient facts for a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. The court stated that failure to amend within that period would result in dismissal of the Newsom claim for failure to state a claim and termination of Newsom from the case.

Dr. Steven Tharratt

The court took judicial notice of public records indicating that Dr. Steven Tharratt died on August 20, 2020, before Johnson filed this action. It held that a deceased person cannot be named as a defendant in the person’s own right without a properly represented estate or successor. The court dismissed Tharratt from the action and directed the clerk to terminate him as a defendant.

The court stated that Johnson could seek to add Tharratt’s estate if he first complied with the applicable California Probate Code provisions. The order did not itself add the estate as a party.

Service and Next Steps

The court ordered service on Ron Broomfield, Kathleen Allison, Ralph Diaz, Ron Davis, Dr. A. Pachynski, Dr. L. Escobell, Clarence Cryer, Dean Borders, Dr. Joseph Bick, Dr. Shanon Garrigan, and Nurse Podosky. Clark Kelso was to be served separately through the California Correctional Health Care Services Litigation Support Section.

The court directed the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion concerning the claims found cognizable within 91 days after the order was filed. Johnson’s opposition would be due 28 days after any such motion, and a reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court also stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and instructed Johnson to keep the court informed of any address change and comply with court deadlines.

Disposition

Judge Edward J. Davila dismissed Dr. Tharratt, dismissed the official-capacity damages claims, dismissed the claim against Gavin Newsom with leave to amend, and ordered service of the complaint on the listed remaining defendants. The individual-capacity damages claims identified in the order could proceed.