Mackey v. Broomfield
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-04341
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Mackey v. Broomfield, Judge Freeman dismissed Mackey’s civil-rights complaint but allowed him 28 days to amend it.
Michael Mackey’s case was dismissed at the required prisoner screening stage, but he was allowed to file an amended complaint within 28 days. The named defendants were not required to defend claims omitted from any amended complaint.
What happened
In Mackey v. Broomfield, Michael Mackey, a state prisoner representing himself, sued prison and state officials under a federal civil-rights law. He argued that San Quentin State Prison should place prisoners in single cells because of COVID-19 and should reopen buildings being used by officers for breaks to make that possible.
The court found that Mackey had not alleged enough facts for a claim under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits inhumane prison conditions. He did not allege that being housed with another prisoner was a sufficiently serious deprivation or that each defendant personally knew about and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to him.
The court dismissed the complaint but gave Mackey 28 days to file an amended complaint addressing these problems. The order warned that failing to respond on time would result in dismissal with prejudice. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order.
The detailed version
- Mackey v. Broomfield · No. 5:22-cv-04341
- Beth Freeman
- Dec. 5, 2022
Background
Michael Mackey, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden Rob Broomfield, R. Reseler, Secretary Ron Davis, and Director Kathleen Allison. Mackey alleged that San Quentin State Prison should house all prisoners in single cells because of COVID-19. He also alleged that closed buildings being used by officers for breaks could be reopened to make single-cell housing possible. Mackey sought changes affecting prisoners generally.
Court’s analysis
The court conducted the preliminary screening required when a prisoner seeks relief from a governmental entity or government officer. At this stage, the court must identify claims that cannot legally support relief or claims against defendants immune from the requested relief. The court also said that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right secured by federal law or the Constitution and conduct by a person acting under state law. The court analyzed Mackey’s allegations under the Eighth Amendment, which applies to prison conditions. An Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim requires an objectively serious deprivation and a sufficiently culpable state of mind by the prison official. The required state of mind is deliberate indifference: the official must know that the prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregard that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to address it.
The court concluded that Mackey’s allegations were insufficient on both elements. He did not allege facts showing that the absence of a single cell was an objectively serious deprivation. He also did not allege facts showing that any named defendant personally knew that Mackey faced a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that risk. The court noted that it was doubtful that Secretary Davis or Director Allison were personally aware of Mackey and his specific circumstances.
Disposition
The court ordered that the complaint be DISMISSED with leave to amend. Mackey was given 28 days from the filing of the order to submit an amended complaint containing specific facts about each defendant and the alleged Eighth Amendment violation. The court explained that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint; claims and defendants omitted from the amended complaint would no longer be part of the case. Mackey was also instructed to limit the relief he sought to himself rather than to other prisoners who were not parties to the action.
The court further ordered that failure to respond as required and within the stated time would result in dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim, without further notice. The order did not state that the current dismissal was with prejudice. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.