Pugh v. Malone

Background

Terryonn D. Pugh, who was an inmate in the Contra Costa County Jail and represented himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Deputies A. Malone and C. Golden. The operative complaint alleged unsafe conditions of confinement related to Covid-19 precautions in Module Q of the jail.

Pugh alleged that on February 16, 2022, the deputies handled dirty laundry in cells occupied by Covid-19-positive inmates and then entered cells of Covid-19-negative inmates without changing their gloves. He also alleged that the deputies removed cleaning supplies from inmates’ cells and, on unspecified occasions, wore masks that did not properly cover their faces or wore no masks. The court had previously determined that, when read broadly, these allegations stated a due-process claim based on deliberate indifference to unsafe conditions of confinement. The opinion also states that verbal-harassment allegations did not state a claim under § 1983.

The deputies presented evidence of jail Covid-19 measures, including employee testing, inmate screening, equipment sanitization, cleaning supplies, cleaning and decontamination procedures, masking, gloves for handling contaminated laundry, quarantines, and vaccinations. They stated that they followed those protocols and that any improper mask coverage was temporary and inadvertent.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires inmates to properly complete available administrative remedies before bringing § 1983 claims about jail conditions. The jail’s process had three levels: an informal complaint, a written grievance, and an appeal to the Facility Commander.

The parties did not dispute that this process was available to Pugh or that he knew about it. Pugh filed one relevant written grievance on February 22, 2022. That grievance addressed the glove-changing and laundry allegations and the removal of cleaning supplies, but it did not address mask use. The grievance was denied, and Pugh did not appeal the denial.

Pugh argued that the February 22 grievance was an appeal from an earlier February 7 grievance. He produced no record of the earlier grievance or an appealable decision. The court also noted that the alleged February 7 grievance did not identify the deputies’ conduct underlying this case. The court concluded that no triable issue of fact showed proper exhaustion and held that the deputies were entitled to summary judgment on exhaustion grounds.

Due process and qualified immunity

The court separately held that the deputies were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

For a pretrial detainee’s due-process failure-to-protect claim against an individual officer, the court identified four requirements: an intentional decision about the detainee’s conditions; conditions creating a substantial risk of serious harm; failure to take reasonable available measures despite an objectively apparent high degree of risk; and causation.

The court stated that failing to change gloves after handling laundry or entering cells of Covid-19-positive inmates could possibly have been objectively unreasonable. It also stated that removing inmates’ cleaning supplies could possibly have been objectively unreasonable under the alleged circumstances. But the parties had cited, and the court was aware of, no clearly established law making that conduct objectively unreasonable.

Regarding masks, Pugh presented no evidence showing when, where, or how often the deputies allegedly wore masks improperly or wore no masks. The deputies declared that they complied with the applicable policies and that any improper mask coverage was inadvertent and temporary. The court found no clearly established law showing that occasional, inadvertent, and temporary incomplete mask coverage, without more, was objectively unreasonable or created a substantial risk of harm violating due process.

The opinion notes a factual dispute about whether Pugh was injured, because the deputies argued he never tested positive for Covid-19 while Pugh described illness and symptoms consistent with Covid-19. The court nevertheless granted summary judgment on exhaustion and qualified-immunity grounds.

Disposition

The court granted the deputies’ motion for summary judgment. The clerk was ordered to enter judgment and close the file. The order resolved docket number 22.