Beulah v. Broomfield

Background

Daryl Anthony Beulah, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, filed a civil-rights action without a lawyer in state court. The defendants removed the action to federal court and paid the filing fee. Beulah asked to amend his complaint, and the defendants did not oppose that request.

Beulah alleged that the defendants failed to protect his health and safety by allowing the transfer of 121 prisoners from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison in May 2020. He alleged that some transferred prisoners had tested positive for COVID-19, that he contracted COVID-19, and that he suffered long-term effects. He asserted claims under the Eighth Amendment and Article 1, section 17 of the California Constitution and sought compensatory and punitive damages.

Screening and Claims

Because Beulah is a prisoner seeking relief from governmental officers or employees, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires the court to identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or barred because they seek money from an immune defendant.

The court held that, when read liberally, Beulah’s allegations about the May 2020 transfer stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims. The court therefore ordered service of the amended complaint on the listed defendants other than those it dismissed.

The court DISMISSED defendant R. Steve Tharratt. Based on a filing in another case and an obituary, the court understood that Dr. Tharratt died on August 20, 2020, before this action was filed. The court stated that a dead person cannot be named as a party in a federal lawsuit. The court allowed Beulah to file a second amended complaint naming Dr. Tharratt’s estate within 28 days if Beulah wishes to pursue a claim against the estate.

The court also DISMISSED defendant J. Clark Kelso based on quasi-judicial immunity. In addition, the court DISMISSED Beulah’s claim under Article 1, section 17 of the California Constitution because that provision does not provide a private right of action for damages.

Appointment of Counsel

The court DENIED Beulah’s motion for appointment of counsel. Although the court stated that Beulah might be likely to succeed on some claims, it found that he was able to present his claims adequately at the current stage. The court therefore found no exceptional circumstances warranting appointed counsel.

Case Management and Disposition

The court GRANTED Beulah’s motion to amend the complaint. It ordered service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program, with United States Marshal service to follow for defendants who do not waive service. The court directed defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 90 days of service, unless they inform the court that the case cannot be resolved that way. It permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and set deadlines for opposition and reply papers.

The order thus allowed the Eighth Amendment claims against the remaining listed defendants to proceed past screening, DISMISSED Tharratt and Kelso, DISMISSED the California Constitution claim, and DENIED appointment of counsel.

Judge and Metadata Note

The opinion is signed by Beth Labson Freeman. The supplied case metadata identifies Edward Davila as the judge, which conflicts with the signed opinion; this summary uses the judge named in the opinion.