Bratton v. Broomfield

Background

Ronald Bratton filed this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials and staff at San Quentin State Prison. The court had previously dismissed his original and first amended complaints but allowed him to amend. This order reviewed his second amended complaint under the required preliminary screening of prisoner lawsuits against governmental entities.

Bratton alleged that he has chronic lymphocytic leukemia, thalassemia, and hypertension. He said his oncologist recommended single-cell housing to protect him from contagious diseases and viruses that could compromise his immune system. Bratton alleged that a reasonable-accommodation request made in May 2017 was denied. He later made another request on April 9, 2020, after the COVID-19 pandemic began. A panel consisting of S.R. Albritton, Dr. S. Garrigan, Dr. Sandler, A. Maxfield, and Nicole Smith denied that request. Bratton alleged that he was later placed in a double cell and became infected with COVID-19 in June 2020. He sought damages and an order requiring single-cell housing for his medical safety.

Screening and claims

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court had to identify claims that were legally sufficient and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a constitutional or federal right by a person acting under state law.

The court found that Bratton’s allegations were sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against the members of the panel who denied his April 2020 request. The court characterized the claim as alleging that those officials failed to protect Bratton from infection despite his immunocompromised medical condition.

The court treated the May 2017 accommodation denial as a separate and unrelated claim because it involved a different group of defendants and a different alleged injury from the COVID-19 exposure and infection. It ordered that those defendants be terminated from this action, while stating that Bratton could pursue that claim in a separate action by filing a proposed complaint and a motion to sever and paying the required filing fee.

The court also dismissed Warden Ron Broomfield from this action because Bratton did not allege specific facts showing Broomfield’s personal involvement in the alleged deprivation. The court said Bratton had already received two opportunities to provide sufficient facts and would not receive another opportunity to amend on that issue.

Order

The court ordered termination of Ron Broomfield, C. Young, Dr. M. Rowe, R. Downey, M. Dahl, V. Bolden, Daniel A. Smith, E. Tootell, and J. Masongay. It ordered service on S.R. Albritton, Dr. S. Garrigan, Dr. Sandler, A. Maxfield, and Nicole Smith through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process.

The order required the defendants to oppose Bratton’s motion for a preliminary injunction and allowed them to file a motion to dismiss at the same time. If no motion to dismiss was filed, the defendants were directed to file a motion for summary judgment or notify the court that such a motion was not appropriate. The order also set deadlines for Bratton’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, provided that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and warned Bratton that failing to oppose a summary-judgment motion could result in judgment against him without a trial. The court did not rule on the preliminary-injunction motion in this order.