Mwasi v. Broomfield

Background

King Mwasi, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment by knowingly transferring busloads of inmates, some infected with COVID-19, from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison in May 2020. Mwasi alleged that he contracted COVID-19 in June 2020 and continued to experience symptoms, including what he described as permanent gastrointestinal disease. He also alleged that he had not received complete or adequate treatment, including evaluation by a specialist for persistent COVID-19 symptoms.

Mwasi sought injunctive relief, monetary damages, and punitive damages. The complaint named Ron Broomfield, Ralph Diaz, Alison Pachynski, Kathleen Allison, R. Steven Tharratt, Ron Davis, Clarence Cryer, Shannon Garrigan, L. Escobell, Muhammad Farooq, Kirk Torres, and “Does 1 to 10.”

Screening and legal standards

Because Mwasi sought relief from government officials while imprisoned, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court was required to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought relief from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state law.

Claims and rulings

Eighth Amendment safety claim

The court held that Mwasi’s allegations about the May 2020 transfer stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to his safety needs. 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 ordered this claim to proceed against the named defendants.

Claim against R. Steven Tharratt

The court DISMISSED the complaint against R. Steven Tharratt. The court took judicial notice of a filing in another case that attached an obituary and stated that, to the Attorney General’s knowledge, Dr. Tharratt died on August 20, 2020. Because his death preceded the filing of this action on March 9, 2023, the court concluded that he was not appropriately named as a defendant when the case began.

Medical-treatment claim

The court DISMISSED Mwasi’s claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, with leave to amend. The court accepted that Mwasi may have had an objectively serious medical need but found that the complaint did not allege facts showing that any named defendant knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded it.

The court allowed Mwasi to amend if he could truthfully provide specific facts showing what each defendant did or failed to do, the date and location of any lack of treatment, and the injuries or damages caused by that lack of treatment. The court also explained that a supervisor is not liable merely because of general supervisory responsibility; liability requires personal involvement or a sufficient causal connection to the alleged constitutional violation.

Claims against “Does 1 to 10”

The court DISMISSED the claim against “Does 1 to 10,” with leave to amend. Mwasi had listed the unidentified defendants but did not explain how they violated his constitutional rights or caused the alleged deprivation. The court directed him to provide their names if known or specific facts explaining their involvement if their names were not yet known. If he named them in an amended complaint, he was directed to identify and describe them as clearly as possible and link each person to the alleged violation.

Conclusion and case administration

The court ordered service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation electronic-service program on Ron Broomfield, Ralph Diaz, Alison Pachynski, Kathleen Allison, Ron Davis, Clarence Cryer, Shannon Garrigan, L. Escobell, Muhammad Farooq, and Kirk Torres. It granted Mwasi 28 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint. The court stated that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint and must include all claims he wished to pursue, including the cognizable safety claim.

The court further stated that if Mwasi did not timely file an amended complaint, the medical-treatment claim and the claim against “Does 1 to 10” would be dismissed, while the original complaint would remain the operative complaint and the action would proceed according to the order. The court also set service, communication, prosecution, address-update, and deadline-extension requirements.