Phillips v. Diaz
- Edward Davila
- 5:22-cv-07206
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Phillips v. Broomfield, Judge Rogers permitted adding seven named defendants to an Eighth Amendment case but refused to add unidentified defendants.
Eric Phillips may continue pursuing his Eighth Amendment claim against Ron Broomfield and the seven specifically named additional defendants. The court did not add Does 1–100, and the order sets service and future case procedures rather than deciding liability.
What happened
Eric Phillips, a California prisoner representing himself, alleged that prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment by transferring more than 100 inmates, some infected with COVID-19, from CIM to SQSP in May 2020. In Phillips v. Broomfield, he sought to add several officials and unidentified defendants to his existing civil-rights claim.
The court permitted the case to proceed against the seven specifically named additional defendants and ordered service on them. It did not permit Phillips to add Does 1–100 because he made no specific allegations about those unidentified people. The original complaint remained the operative pleading, except for adding the named defendants.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued the order on May 23, 2023. The order did not decide whether the defendants ultimately violated Phillips’s constitutional rights; it set service and case-management procedures so the claim could continue.
The detailed version
- Phillips v. Diaz · No. 5:22-cv-07206
- Edward Davila
- May 23, 2023
Background
Eric Phillips, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action 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 State Prison in May 2020.
The court had previously screened the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that Phillips stated a legally sufficient Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to his safety needs. The court ordered service on San Quentin Warden Ron Broomfield and dismissed Phillips’s damages claim against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In related proceedings concerning common legal issues, Judge William H. Orrick had determined that the complaint would not be dismissed against Broomfield for failing to state an adequate Eighth Amendment claim.
Motion to Add Defendants
The court treated Phillips’s filing at Docket No. 16 as a motion for permission to amend. Phillips sought to add:
- CDCR Secretary Ralph Diaz; - CDCR Director Kathleen Allison; - Associate Director of Reception Mission Ron Davis; - Federal Receiver Clark Kelso; - San Quentin Chief Medical Executive Allison Pachynski; - California Institution for Men Warden Dean Borders; - CCHCS Director Joseph Bick; and - Does 1–100.
Phillips alleged that these defendants violated the Eighth Amendment because of the transfer that allegedly created a deadly COVID-19 outbreak in June 2020.
Court’s Analysis and Rulings
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) generally requires courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires. The court may consider bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, whether the amendment would be futile, and whether the plaintiff previously amended the complaint.
Because Phillips had stated a legally sufficient Eighth Amendment claim against Broomfield, whom he alleged was involved in the inmate transfer, the court concluded that Phillips had also stated a legally sufficient claim against the specifically named additional defendants, whom he alleged were involved in the same transfer. The court found that the defendants had adequate notice of the claim and would not be prejudiced. The court therefore permitted the case to proceed on the Eighth Amendment claim against the seven specifically named additional defendants and ordered service on them.
The court did not permit Phillips to add Does 1–100 because he had not made specific allegations about any unidentified defendant. The original complaint remained the operative pleading, except for adding the newly named defendants.
Service and Further Proceedings
The court ordered service on Diaz, Allison, Davis, Pachynski, Borders, and Bick through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. Service on Kelso was ordered separately through electronic service on him and his attorney. The order also established procedures for service waivers and service by the United States Marshals Service if necessary.
The court stated that it would issue a schedule for summary-judgment or other case-ending motions after the common legal issues in the related proceeding were resolved as to the newly named defendants. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of Phillips’s Eighth Amendment claim.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.