Shabazz v. Broomfield
- Edward Davila
- 5:22-cv-05569
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Shabazz v. Broomfield, Judge Freeman screened a prisoner’s COVID-19 claim, dismissed official-capacity damages claims, and ordered service on defendants.
Amir Shabazz’s case proceeds on his alleged Eighth Amendment safety claims against the named defendants, subject to the court’s dismissal of claims for damages based on defendants’ official-capacity actions. The defendants must respond through the service procedures described in the order.
What happened
In Shabazz v. Broomfield, Amir Shabazz, a California prisoner representing himself, alleged that officials violated the Eighth Amendment by transferring more than 100 inmates, including some infected with COVID-19, from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison in May 2020. He alleged that San Quentin had poor ventilation and open-front cells, that officials ignored safety measures, and that he contracted COVID-19 during the resulting outbreak.
The court found that the allegations plausibly stated a claim that all named defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety. This means the allegations, if proven, could show that officials knew about a serious risk of harm and failed to take reasonable steps to address it. The court dismissed only Shabazz’s claims for damages against defendants in their official capacities because those claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered the case served on nine defendants through the prison system’s electronic service program and ordered separate service on Clark Kelso. The order did not decide whether the defendants were ultimately liable. It also stated that the court would issue a schedule for summary judgment or another case-ending motion after related common issues were resolved.
The detailed version
- Shabazz v. Broomfield · No. 5:22-cv-05569
- Edward Davila
- Jan. 12, 2023
Background
Amir Shabazz, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by transferring 122 inmates from the California Institution for Men, where there was a COVID-19 outbreak, to San Quentin State Prison on May 30, 2020. He alleged that some transferred inmates were infected, that San Quentin had poor ventilation and open-front cells, and that the defendants ignored safety measures. Shabazz alleged that he contracted COVID-19 after the transfer and resulting outbreak.
The named defendants were Ron Broomfield, Ralph Diaz, Ron Davis, Kathleen Allison, J. Clark Kelso, Alison Pachynski, L. Escobell, Clarence Cryer, Dean Borders, and Joseph Bick. Shabazz sued each in both individual and official capacities.
Screening and legal claims
Because Shabazz sought relief from governmental officials while incarcerated, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires the court to identify claims that are legally sufficient and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.
The court held that, when liberally construed, Shabazz’s allegations stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to safety against all defendants. The court relied on the rule that a prison official is deliberately indifferent when the official knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to reduce it. The court also found that the allegations stated plausible claims based on the defendants’ described positions within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or at the identified prisons.
Official-capacity damages claims
The court dismissed Shabazz’s claims for damages based on defendants’ actions in their official capacities. It explained that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state in federal court without the state’s consent and that state officials sued in their official capacities are treated as sued against the state itself. The order specifically dismissed those official-capacity damages claims; it did not state that the entire action was dismissed.
Service and next steps
The court ordered service on Ron Broomfield, Ralph Diaz, Ron Davis, Kathleen Allison, Alison Pachynski, L. Escobell, Clarence Cryer, Dean Borders, and Joseph Bick through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. It ordered separate electronic service on J. Clark Kelso and his attorney.
The defendants were cautioned that they must cooperate with requests to waive service or may have to bear service costs unless they show good cause. The court stated that it would issue a schedule for summary judgment or another dispositive motion after resolution of common issues in a related matter. Shabazz was also directed to prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, serve his court communications on defense counsel, and meet filing deadlines.
Disposition
The court ordered service of the complaint on the defendants after finding the Eighth Amendment safety allegations cognizable, while dismissing the claims for damages based on defendants’ official-capacity actions.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.