Johnson v. Davis
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-01693
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Johnson v. Davis, Judge White ordered service of the complaint, denied fee-free status, and denied supplemental exhibits.
Paul David Johnson and the five named defendants—Ronald Broomfield, Troy Allen, Matt Verdier, Ron Davis, and J. Clark Kelso—were affected. The order allowed service to proceed, denied Johnson’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee, and denied his motion to add supplemental exhibits.
What happened
In Johnson v. Davis, Paul David Johnson, a California prisoner representing himself, sued prison officials under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that officials transferred prisoners to San Quentin State Prison without adequate protections, causing a COVID-19 outbreak during which he tested positive.
The court found that Johnson’s allegations could support a constitutional claim that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety. The court ordered the complaint served on the five defendants, denied Johnson’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee, and denied his request to add supplemental exhibits. The court said he could refile the exhibits later when appropriate.
Judge Jeffrey S. White issued the order on August 4, 2022. The order began the service process and did not decide whether Johnson would ultimately win his claims.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Davis · No. 5:21-cv-01693
- Edward Davila
- Aug. 4, 2022
Background
Paul David Johnson, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials. He alleged that more than 100 prisoners, some infected with COVID-19, were transferred from the California Institute for Men to San Quentin State Prison around May 26, 2020, without protective gear or proper examinations. Johnson alleged that the transfer caused an outbreak at San Quentin and that he tested positive on June 29, 2020.
The defendants named in the operative complaint were Ronald Broomfield, Troy Allen, Matt Verdier, Ron Davis, and J. Clark Kelso. Johnson also sought to add supplemental exhibits concerning the alleged COVID-19 response, qualified immunity, overcrowding, and related materials.
Screening and claims
Because Johnson was a prisoner suing governmental officials, the court conducted the preliminary review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under that review, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or barred by immunity.
The court held that, when read liberally, Johnson’s allegations stated a cognizable claim that all defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The opinion also discussed Johnson’s claim involving emotional distress under California law. It explained that California does not recognize negligent infliction of emotional distress as an independent tort, but that recovery may be available when emotional distress results from a defendant’s breach of another legal duty. The court stated that prisoners and jailers have a special relationship imposing a duty of care and that Johnson alleged his emotional distress resulted from defendants’ alleged exposure of him to COVID-19.
Order
Judge Jeffrey S. White ordered service of the operative complaint on Ronald Broomfield, Troy Allen, Matt Verdier, and Ron Davis through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program. The court ordered separate electronic service on J. Clark Kelso and his attorney and directed the defendants to address whether they would waive formal service. The order also cautioned that defendants who declined to waive service could be required to bear service costs unless they showed good cause.
The court denied Johnson’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee because his average trust-account balance during the preceding six months exceeded $10,000. The court noted that Johnson had already paid the filing fee and that the United States Marshals Service could seek reimbursement from him for service costs if defendants did not waive service.
The court denied Johnson’s motion to add supplemental exhibits. It stated that no briefing had yet been ordered on the relevant issues and that the materials were more appropriate for a later stage, including if defendants raised qualified immunity. The court stated that Johnson could refile the materials later when appropriate.
This was a screening and service order, not a final decision on the merits of Johnson’s claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.