Hampton v. State of California

Background

Michael Hampton, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, died after contracting COVID-19. His widow sued the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, San Quentin, and ten officials. The complaint alleged that officials knew of the risks of transferring medically vulnerable prisoners from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin, approved the transfer, housed the transferred prisoners with other prisoners, and failed to use basic safety measures such as adequate testing, masks, social distancing, quarantine, and cleaning supplies.

The complaint asserted five groups of claims: deliberate indifference 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 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; and negligence.

Rulings on the Motion to Dismiss

The defendants sought dismissal based on qualified immunity, immunity under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, deficiencies in the disability claims, and California statutory immunities.

The court held that the complaint plausibly alleged that the defendants knew about the risks of the transfer and ignored them when they authorized or carried it out. The court also held that the complaint plausibly alleged personal involvement, failures to act, and supervisory acquiescence sufficient to support the constitutional claims at the pleading stage. The court treated factual disputes as matters for a later stage, such as summary judgment, rather than grounds for dismissal.

The court denied qualified immunity at this stage. It concluded that the alleged right of prisoners to protection from deliberate indifference to heightened exposure to a serious communicable disease was clearly established when the events occurred. The court noted that later undisputed facts might affect the issue, but the allegations were sufficient to proceed.

The court also denied dismissal based on the PREP Act. The complaint alleged that Hampton’s death resulted from a botched transfer and failures to use safety measures, including measures that were not covered countermeasures under that statute. The court further noted factual disputes about whether the defendants intentionally allocated countermeasures or failed to act.

Disability Claims

The court concluded that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Hampton had a disability, including sleep apnea, but did not plausibly allege intentional discrimination. Specifically, the complaint did not include facts showing that the defendants had notice of Hampton’s disability and the accommodations he needed. The court dismissed the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claim without prejudice and with leave to amend. It did not set an amendment deadline because Hampton’s custody file and medical records might be needed to plead the claim adequately.

California Immunities

The court held that California statutory immunities did not bar the Bane Act and negligence claims at the pleading stage. The plaintiffs challenged the allegedly deliberately indifferent manner in which the transfer and later housing decisions were carried out, rather than merely challenging a discretionary decision to transfer prisoners. The court also held that the complaint plausibly alleged the individual defendants’ involvement, defeating the immunity arguments at this stage.

Disposition

The court entered an amended order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. It dismissed the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claim against all defendants without prejudice and otherwise denied the motion to dismiss. The parties had to confer within one week about the process for amending the complaint, and any new complaint had to include a comparison showing its changes from the current complaint.