Mills v. Broomfield
- Edward Davila
- 5:22-cv-05126
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Mills v. Broomfield, Judge White ordered service on an Eighth Amendment prison-safety case but dismissed official-capacity damages claims.
Jeffrey Mills’s case may proceed past initial screening on his alleged Eighth Amendment safety claim against the listed defendants, subject to the court’s dismissal of damages claims based on actions taken in their official capacities. The defendants must follow the ordered service procedures.
What happened
In Mills v. Broomfield, Jeffrey Mills, a California prisoner representing himself, alleged that prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment by transferring 122 prisoners from a prison experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak to San Quentin State Prison in May 2020. Mills alleged that San Quentin had poor ventilation and that officials ignored safety measures; he later tested positive for COVID-19.
The court found that Mills’s allegations plausibly stated a claim that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety. It ordered service of the complaint on the defendants. The court dismissed Mills’s claims for damages based on actions taken in the defendants’ official capacities because the Eleventh Amendment barred those claims.
Judge Jeffrey S. White issued the order on January 10, 2023. The order also set procedures for serving the defendants and stated that scheduling for summary judgment or another case-ending motion would follow resolution of common issues in a related matter.
The detailed version
- Mills v. Broomfield · No. 5:22-cv-05126
- Edward Davila
- Jan. 10, 2023
Background
Jeffrey Mills, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by transferring 122 prisoners from the California Institution for Men, where there was a COVID-19 outbreak, to San Quentin State Prison, where the opinion states there were no COVID-19 cases, on May 30, 2020. Mills alleged that San Quentin was unsuitable because of its poor ventilation and open-cell-front housing, and that the defendants ignored nearly all safety measures. He alleged that he tested positive for COVID-19 in July 2020.
Mills sued Ron Broomfield, Ralph Diaz, Ron Davis, Kathleen Allison, J. Clark Kelso, Alison Pachynski, L. Escobell, Clarence Cryer, and Dean Borders in their individual and official capacities. The opinion describes these defendants as officials or medical executives connected to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, San Quentin State Prison, or the California Institution for Men.
Screening analysis
Because Mills was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.
The court concluded that, when read liberally, Mills’s allegations stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to his safety against all defendants. Deliberate indifference requires allegations that an official knew a prisoner faced a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to reduce it. The court stated that the allegations were plausible based on the defendants’ described positions within the corrections department or at the prisons. This was a screening determination, not a final decision on whether Mills will ultimately prevail.
Official-capacity damages claims
The court explained that the Eleventh Amendment generally bars a person from suing a state in federal court without the state’s consent. It also explained that a state official sued in an official capacity is treated as being sued against the official’s office, rather than as an individual person, for purposes of § 1983. The court therefore dismissed Mills’s claims for damages based on defendants’ actions in their official capacities as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Order
The court ordered service on Ron Broomfield, Ralph Diaz, Ron Davis, Kathleen Allison, Alison Pachynski, L. Escobell, Clarence Cryer, and Dean Borders through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. It ordered separate service on Clark Kelso through electronic service to Kelso and his attorney. The order also directed the clerk and the corrections department to follow specified procedures for waivers of service and service by the United States Marshal Service when necessary.
The court stated that it would issue a scheduling order for summary judgment or another dispositive motion after common issues were resolved in the related matter identified as No. 22-mc-80066-WHO. The order further required Mills to serve copies of his court communications on defendants or their counsel and reminded him that he was responsible for prosecuting the case.
Disposition
The court dismissed Mills’s claims for damages based on defendants’ actions in their official capacities. It ordered service of the remaining claims as specified in the order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.