Crittenden v. Diaz
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-05805
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Crittenden v. Diaz, Judge Freeman screened Steve Crittenden’s prison-rights complaint, dismissed claims against Dr. Tharratt, and allowed claims against others to proceed.
Steve Crittenden’s claims against Dr. Steven Tharratt were dismissed because the court determined that Tharratt died before the lawsuit was filed. Crittenden’s Eighth Amendment claims against the remaining listed defendants were allowed to proceed past screening, with service ordered.
What happened
In Crittenden v. Diaz, Steve Crittenden, a San Quentin State Prison inmate, alleged that officials violated the Eighth Amendment by transferring more than 100 inmates, some infected with COVID-19, to San Quentin in May 2020. He alleged that transferred inmates were not recently tested, were not tested immediately upon arrival, and shared facilities with other prisoners.
The court found that these allegations stated valid Eighth Amendment claims under the prisoner-screening standard. It dismissed the claims against Dr. Steven Tharratt because the court found that he had died before the lawsuit was filed, while allowing Crittenden to amend the complaint if he wished to sue Dr. Tharratt’s estate. The court ordered service of the complaint on the remaining listed defendants and directed that later case scheduling would follow resolution of related common issues.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued the order on August 31, 2022. The order was not a final decision on whether the remaining defendants violated Crittenden’s rights; it allowed those claims to proceed past screening.
The detailed version
- Crittenden v. Diaz · No. 5:21-cv-05805
- Edward Davila
- Aug. 31, 2022
Background
Steve Crittenden, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by transferring more than 100 inmates from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin in May 2020, including inmates who were infected with COVID-19. He alleged that none of the 121 transferred inmates had been tested during the three weeks before the transfer, that they were not tested immediately upon arrival, and that they used the same showers and dining hall as other prisoners. He alleged that the resulting outbreak led to 2,050 prisoners testing positive and 12 deaths by mid-July 2020. He sought compensatory and punitive damages.
Crittenden’s first amended complaint named former California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary Ralph Diaz, San Quentin warden Rob Bloomfield, Dr. Steven Tharratt, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and San Quentin State Prison. Although Crittenden had formerly proceeded without a lawyer, the opinion states that he was represented by counsel when the first amended complaint was before the court.
Screening standard
Because Crittenden was a prisoner suing governmental defendants, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires the court to identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state law.
Court’s analysis and rulings
The court held that, when liberally construed, the allegations concerning the May 2020 transfer stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims. The court relied on the rule that a prison official is deliberately indifferent 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.
The court dismissed Defendant Tharratt. It took judicial notice of a filing in another case that included an obituary and stated that, to the Attorney General’s knowledge, Dr. Tharratt died on August 20, 2020. Because the court determined that his death occurred before this action was filed on July 28, 2021, it concluded that he was not properly named as a defendant when the lawsuit began.
The court stated that Crittenden could file a second amended complaint naming Dr. Tharratt’s estate within 28 days if he wished to pursue such a claim. The court specified that the second amended complaint would replace the prior complaint and must include all claims Crittenden wished to present.
The court ordered service on the remaining listed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation defendants through the department’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order also described procedures for defendants who did not waive service, cautioned defendants about potential service costs, and directed Crittenden to provide copies of his court communications to defense counsel or, until counsel was designated, to the defendants.
Disposition
The court dismissed Defendant Tharratt, permitted a possible amended complaint naming his estate, and ordered service on the remaining defendants. It stated that scheduling for summary-judgment or other dispositive-motion briefing would occur after resolution of common issues in a related matter. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of the remaining Eighth Amendment claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.