Hudson v. Broomfield

Background

Toriano Germaine Hudson, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He was formerly proceeding without a lawyer but was represented by counsel when the court considered his Second Amended Complaint. Hudson alleged that officials violated the Eighth Amendment by transferring more than 100 inmates from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin in May 2020, including some inmates who were infected with COVID-19.

According to the complaint, some transferred prisoners had outdated COVID-19 test results or had not been tested. Hudson alleged that officials disregarded social-distancing and other health guidelines, placed more than 19 prisoners on each bus, and failed to implement basic safety measures after the prisoners arrived at San Quentin. He alleged that he tested positive for COVID-19 on June 24, 2020, and sought compensatory and punitive damages.

Screening standard and claims

Because Hudson was a prisoner seeking relief from government officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening is a preliminary review in which the court identifies claims that may proceed and dismisses claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

The court concluded that, when read liberally, Hudson’s allegations about the May 2020 transfer stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims. The court applied the rule that a prison official may violate the Eighth Amendment by knowing that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarding that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to reduce it.

Defendant-specific rulings

The court dismissed the claim against John Doe without prejudice because Hudson made no specific allegations about that unknown defendant. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not bar refiling the claim, subject to applicable requirements.

The court dismissed the claim against Nurse Podosky without prejudice. Hudson alleged only that Podosky responded to a healthcare appeal and knew about health conditions that made him vulnerable to COVID-19; he did not allege that Podosky participated in the transfer decisions or in the failure to quarantine transferred prisoners.

The court dismissed the claims against Dr. Steven Tharratt without prejudice. Based on information represented by the Attorney General in another case and a publicly available obituary, the court took notice that Tharratt died on August 20, 2020, before this action was filed on February 12, 2021. The court concluded that Tharratt was not properly named as a defendant at the beginning of the case.

The court dismissed Clark Kelso with prejudice because the parties had stipulated to his dismissal. “With prejudice” means that dismissal barred refiling the claim against him in this action.

Service and next steps

The court ordered service to proceed through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for these nine defendants: Kathleen Allison, Ralph Diaz, Ron Davis, Dr. Joseph Bick, Ron Broomfield, Dr. Pachynski, Clarence Cryer, Dean Borders, and Dr. L. Escobell. The order described service-waiver procedures and directed the clerk and the United States Marshals Service to arrange service for defendants who did not waive it.

The court also directed the parties to cooperate with service, required Hudson to provide copies of court communications to defense counsel or the defendants before counsel was designated, and reminded Hudson that he was responsible for prosecuting the case and keeping the court informed of address changes. The court stated that it would issue a scheduling order for summary judgment or another dispositive motion after resolution of common issues in the related proceeding. Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order.