Hamilton v. Allison

Background

Thaddeus D. Hamilton, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, brought this civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by transferring more than 100 inmates, some of whom had COVID-19, from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin in May 2020.

Hamilton alleged that officials failed to take adequate precautions before, during, and after the transfer. The alleged failures included not testing or screening transferring prisoners at appropriate times, not maintaining physical distancing on transfer buses, and not testing and isolating prisoners after they arrived. He also alleged that San Quentin had poor ventilation, close living quarters, and inadequate sanitation. Hamilton alleged that he developed COVID-19 symptoms after the transfer and continues to experience symptoms.

The defendants named in the complaint included Kathleen Allison, Diaz, Davis, Ron Broomfield, Kelso, Pachynski, Escobell, Steven Tharratt, Clarence Cryer, Dean Borders, and Joseph Bick. Hamilton sued the defendants in both their individual and official capacities. The opinion states that Hamilton was formerly proceeding without a lawyer but was represented by counsel when the complaint was screened.

Screening and Claims

Because Hamilton was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court had to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant.

The court held that, read liberally, Hamilton’s allegations about the May 2020 transfer stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims. The court applied the standard that a prison official violates the Eighth Amendment through deliberate indifference when the official knows a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to reduce it.

Rulings

The court dismissed Hamilton’s claims for damages against defendants in their official capacities. It held that the Eleventh Amendment bars those monetary claims because an official-capacity suit is treated as a suit against the state. The ruling addressed damages claims based on official-capacity conduct; the order did not state that all claims against the defendants were dismissed.

The court also dismissed Defendant Steven Tharratt. Based on a filing in another case and an obituary, of which it took judicial notice, the court understood that Tharratt died on August 20, 2020—before this action was filed on December 10, 2021. The court stated that a dead person cannot be named as a party in a federal lawsuit in that person’s own right. Hamilton may file an amended complaint naming Tharratt’s estate within 28 days if he wishes to pursue a claim against the estate.

The court dismissed Defendant Clark Kelso with prejudice based on the parties’ stipulated dismissal. The order directed that service proceed through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for Allison, Davis, Broomfield, Pachynski, Escobell, Cryer, Borders, and Bick. The court stated that it would issue a scheduling order for summary judgment or another dispositive motion after resolution of common issues in a related proceeding.