Hines v. Youseff
| Decision Date | 01 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 15-16145, No. 15-17201, No. 15-17076, No. 15-17155,15-16145 |
| Citation | 914 F.3d 1218 |
| Parties | Darnell T. HINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ashrafe E. YOUSEFF, M.D.; Godwin C. Ugueze, M.D.; Joshua Garza, RNP; M. Aguirre, Defendants-Appellees. Arthur Duane Jackson; Leonard M. Lujan; Marcus Jackson; Rodney Taylor; Lacedric W. Johnson; L. T. Belton; Norman Johnson; Corey Lamar Smith; Frederick Beagle; Abdulle Abukar, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor; Matthew Cate, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; Jeffrey Beard, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; Paul D. Brazelton, Warden, Pleasant Valley State Prison; James D. Hartley, Warden, Avenal State Prison, Defendants-Appellants. Corey Lamar Smith; Dion Barnett; Christopher E. Garner; Rodney Ray Roberts; Jeremy Romo; Danny Dallas ; Frederick Beagle; Don Belardes; Floyd Boyd; Richard Burke; Joseph Bustamonte; Charles Joseph Carter; Otha Clark; Donald Dibble; Jerome Felder; Candelario Garza; Jeremy Lee Hollis; Scott Imuta; George Johnson; Bruce Koklich; Grady Montgomery ; Peter Romero ; Josh Thomas ; Aaron Tillis; Rene Villanueva ; Bertrum Westbrook; Wayne James Woods; Abdulle Abukar; Ruben Arechiga; John Wesley Bess; Michael Blue ; David Cox; Orlando Creswell; Daniel Dayton; Pablo Dominguez; Josh Draper; Kenji Dominique Jackson; Albert Sherrod; Adrian Sepulveda ; Kirk Smith ; Hector Talamantes; Ismael Torres-Robles; Kenneth Washington ; Thomas Wiley; Darren Charles Williams; Theodore Wood; Donald Wright; George Yount; Garland Baker ; Charles McQuarn; Richard Adams; David Atzet; Derrico Aubrey; Daniel Boland ; Christopher Bonds; Keevan Burks; Kevin Call ; Joseph DeJesus; Gerald W. Dickson; Eric Donaldson; Roy Lee Doss; Joseph Alfonso Duran; James Farr ; Joseph Ferris; Alvin Flowers; Stephen Franklin; Aubrey Galloway ; John Ray Gholar; Robert Gonzalez; Vernon Grant; Walter Green; Robert Harris; Sinoa Hercules; Bret Hill; Adrian Johnson; Ellis Clay Hollis; Edward Jones; Anthony R. Jones; Lawrence Kerner; Titi Lavea; Cleofas Lewis; Michael Manning; Robert Maeschek; Daniel Masushige; Ellis McCloud; Brandon McDonald; Jeffrey McDonald; Juan Meza; Herschel Mitchell; Noel Morales; Raymond Newsom; Jesus Antonio Perez; Harvey Rayburn; Jorge Augusto Reyes; Jay Roach ; Paul Richardson; Tyrone Sanders; Johnny O. Sanchez; Edward Spence ; Tracy L. Stewart; Louis Thomas; Elonza Jesse Tyler; Vance Utley; Byron West; William Wiley ; Rodney Williams; Robert Wolters ; Michael Morrow; Damor Hill; Corey Campbell ; Robert Conley; Sinohe Hercules; Juan Carlos Martinez; Juan Penalva; Robert Preston, Jr.; John Arthur Ruggles; Willie Steels ; Solomon Vasquez; George Lewis; Richard Arteaga; Pablo Castaneda; Chaney Clifford; Campbell Corey; Robert Conley; Alvin Cooper ; Kenneth Glen Corley; Walter Cornethan; Roy Corning; Dennis Duree; Sinohe Hercules; Carlos Hernandez; Damor Hill; Danilo Jalotlot; Asad Lewis; George Lewis; Joe M. Lewis ; Juan Martinez; Thomas Milford ; Dale Miller; Daniel Molen; Andre Moody; Michael Morrow; Freddy Neal; Chek Ngoun; Sim Peav; Juan Penalva; Marvin Pierce; Robert Preston, Jr.; David Robinson; Ronald Rodriguez; John Arthur Ruggles; Lorenzo Sams; Leroy Smith; Willie Steels ; Maurice Thomas; Tyrone Thompson; Roberto Vasquez; Solomon Vasquez; Patrick Wallace ; Xavier S. Williams; Kenneth Yancey, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor; Matthew Cate; James D. Hartley, Warden; Jeffrey A. Beard ; Paul D. Brazelton, Warden; Susan L. Hubbard ; Deborah Hysen; Scott Kernan; Chris Meyer; Tonya R. Rothchild; Teresa Schwartz; James A. Yates, Warden; Dwight Winslow, M.D.; Felix Igbinosa, M.D.; Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor, Defendants-Appellees. Lorenzo Gregge, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Matthew Cate; Ralph Diaz, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; James A. Yates, Warden, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Gregg Zucker (argued) and Victoria Niewrzol, Affeld Grivakes Zucker LLP, Los Angeles, California; Tara Burd and Benjamin Pavone, Pavone & Fonner, San Diego, California; Matthew B. Pavone, Law Offices of Matthew B. Pavone, Novato, California; Frederik Spiess and Edward Burns, Burns & Schaldenbrand, Oceanside, California; David Elliot, Law Offices of David Elliot, San Diego, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellants Smith and Gregge, et al.
Greg W. Garrotto (argued), Law Offices of Garrotto & Garrotto, Los Angeles, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant Hines.
Milin Chun (argued), Brian M. Bush, and Raymond P. Boucher, Boucher LLP, Woodland Hills, California; Ian Wallach and Jason Feldman, Feldman & Wallach, Santa Monica, California; Mark Ozzello, Arias Ozzello & Gignac, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees Jackson, et al.
Jay Russell (argued), Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Kevin A. Voth, Martine D. Agostino, and Maureen Onyeagbako, Deputy Attorneys General; Jon S. Allin and Thomas S. Patterson, Supervising Attorneys General; Jonathan L. Wolff, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, San Francisco, California; for Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Kristina Doan Gruenberg and Susan E. Coleman, Burke Williams & Sorensen LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Defendants-Appellees Igbinosa and Winslow.
Before: Andrew J. Kleinfeld and Sandra S. Ikuta,** Circuit Judges, and Rosanna Malouf Peterson,*** District Judge.
Inmates in several California state prisons were exposed to a heightened risk of getting Valley Fever, so they sued state officials for money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The inmates claim that exposing them to a heightened risk of getting Valley Fever was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. African-American inmates add a challenge under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They claim that because African-American inmates were particularly likely to get Valley Fever and suffer serious consequences, they should have been segregated from the prisons with the highest infection rates. In each of the four cases on appeal, we hold that the state officials are entitled to qualified immunity.
For years, inmates in California state prisons have claimed that the state violates the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide sufficient medical care. Many inmates have sued. In 2002, California signed a consent decree in one such case, Plata v. Davis . As part of that decree, California promised to implement specific procedures to ensure that inmates statewide received constitutionally adequate medical care.1 But the state did not satisfy the terms of the decree, so in 2006 the Plata district court appointed a federal Receiver.2 The court conferred on the Receiver "all powers vested by law in the Secretary of the [California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation] as they relate to the administration, control, management, operation, and financing of the California prison medical health care system."3 The court concurrently "suspended" the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's exercise of those powers "for the duration of the Receivership."4 The Receiver has filed papers with the Plata district court, and the district court has entered orders to improve medical care.5
Therefore, since 2006, state officials have made decisions about prison medical care while under the control of a federal Receiver, appointed by a federal district court to ensure compliance with the Eighth Amendment. This case challenges how those state officials responded to Valley Fever outbreaks in several prisons in the Central Valley of California, despite the Receiver's control.
Valley Fever is a disease caused by inhaling certain fungal spores. The spores, which live in dry soil, are common in much of the southwestern United States. Millions of people live where the spores are common, and tens of thousands of people are infected each year. Two-thirds of infections are reported in Arizona. One-fourth are reported in California. The rest are typically reported in Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, and Texas.6
Once someone has been infected with the fungal spores, they are immune from future infections. But infections affect different people in different ways. About 60% of infected people do not develop any symptoms. Another 30% develop only mild flu-like symptoms (such as fever, cough
, rash, headaches, and muscle aches) that usually go away after a few weeks. But around 10% of people develop a severe case of Valley Fever. About 8% of infections lead to a severe respiratory disease. And 1–5% of infections spread from the lungs to other parts of the body, a serious condition known as "disseminated cocci." Patients with disseminated cocci can be effectively treated, but they cannot be cured. Many disseminated cocci patients need expensive treatment for the rest of their lives to prevent their symptoms from recurring. In rare cases, such as when disseminated cocci spread to the brain and are not effectively treated, Valley Fever is fatal.
Some groups of people have an above-average risk of experiencing severe symptoms or developing disseminated cocci. One risk factor is having an underlying medical condition, such as HIV, diabetes
, or heart disease. Another risk factor is being on a medication that suppresses the immune system, such as chemotherapy. Adults over 55 and pregnant women are at a greater risk. Men are more likely than women to develop disseminated cocci. And for unknown reasons, people of African and Filipino descent are several times more likely to develop disseminated cocci than are people of other racial or ethnic backgrounds.
In 2005, California prison officials noticed a "significant increase" in the number of Valley Fever cases among prisoners. The federal Receiver asked the California...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
B&L Prods., Inc. v. 22ND Dist. Agric. Ass'n, Case No.: 3:19-CV-134-CAB-NLS
...Amendment right to equal protection to propose or vote for a rule banning gun shows from a public fairground. Hines v. Youseff , 914 F.3d 1218, 1229–30 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Dist. of Columbia v. Wesby , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 577, 589–90, 199 L.Ed.2d 453 (2018) ). Plaintiffs point to n......
-
Rico v. Ducart
...and sometimes the most obviously unlawful things happen so rarely that a case on point is itself an unusual thing." Hines v. Youseff , 914 F.3d 1218, 1230 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). However, the Pelican Bay officials carrying out the Coleman court order can hardly be considered to ......
-
Spears v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents
...authority’ [that the First Amendment is violated in a case similar to this one]. But no such precedent exists." Hines v. Youseff , 914 F.3d 1218, 1229 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Dist. of Columbia v. Wesby , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 577, 589–90, 199 L.Ed.2d 453 (2018) ). Rather, the case law g......
-
Polanco v. Diaz
...also does not suggest that the Receiver directed Defendants' post-transfer protocols. This case is therefore unlike Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2019), or Rico v. Ducart, 980 F.3d 1292 (9th Cir. 2020), on which Defendants rely. In both of those cases, the plaintiffs' claims aro......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...language mail but translated Spanish-speaking prisoners’ Spanish-language mail due to availability of translators); Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1234-35 (9th Cir. 2019) (no equal protection violation where officials did not exclude African-American prisoners especially susceptible to V......
-
PRISON MEDICAL DEATHS AND QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
...v. Youssef, No. l:13-CV-0357, 2015 WL 2385095, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2015), affd in part, rev'd in part sub nom. Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. (116) Id. at 4. (117) Id. at 10. (118) Grizzle v. Christian, No. CIV-16-254-SPS, 2018 WL 4286187, at *7, *8 (E.D. Okla. Sept. 7, 2018......
-
THE HOUSE ALWAYS WINS: DOCTRINE AND ANIMUS IN CALIFORNIA'S COVID-19 PRISON LITIGATION.
...(E.D. Cal. 1995). (32.) Plata v. Schwarzenegger, No. C01-1351 TEH, 2005 WL 2932253, at *1, *33 (N.D. Cal. 2005). (33.) Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1223-25 (9th Cir. (34.) Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, 922 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. & N.D. Cal. 2009). (35.) HADAR AVIRAM, CHEAP ON CRIME: REC......