Beagle v. Schwarzenegger

Decision Date25 July 2014
Docket NumberNo. 1:14–CV–430–LJO–SAB.,1:14–CV–430–LJO–SAB.
Citation107 F.Supp.3d 1056
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
Parties Frederick BEAGLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants.

Benjamin Laurence Pavone, Pavone & Fonner, San Diego, CA, Gregg David Zucker, Victoria Elizabeth Niewrzol, Affeld Grivakes Zucker, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.

David Eugene Brice, Michelle L. Angus, Attorney General's Office of the State of California, Jon S. Allin, California Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, Susan Eileen Coleman, Kristina Doan Gruenberg, Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Benjamin Louis Stock, J. Leah Castella, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Oakland, CA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 64)
I. INTRODUCTION

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.

Plaintiffs1 are former and current inmates at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP") in Coalinga, California or Avenal State Prison ("ASP") in Avenal, California, who contracted "Valley Fever" during their terms of incarceration. Doc. 2 ("Compl.") at ¶ 1. This case is one of four related suits brought by various Plaintiffs who contracted Valley Fever while incarcerated. See Jackson v. State of California, 1:13–CV–1055–LJO–SAB; Smith v. Schwarzenegger, 1:14–CV–60–LJO–SAB; Abukar v. Schwarzenegger, 1:14–CV–816–LJO–SAB. Plaintiffs bring this suit against Defendants,2 various former and current government officials and former and current employees of PVSP, for their roles in causing Plaintiffs to contract Valley Fever. Id.

Plaintiffs assert two causes of action against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" § 1983") in which they allege Defendants "recklessly caused Plaintiffs to contract Valley Fever" in violation of their Eighth Amendment rights. Compl. at ¶ 1. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege Defendants (1) recklessly exposed Plaintiffs to dangerous conditions in violation of the Eighth Amendment and (2) Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs' serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Compl. at 1. Plaintiffs assert a third cause of action against Defendants for negligence. Id.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Docs. 25, 27. On June 24, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations ("F & Rs") recommending that Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. Doc. 64 ("F & R") at 1.

On July 8, 2014, Plaintiffs timely filed twelve objections to the F & Rs ("Plaintiffs' objections"). Doc. 66 at 3. On July 22, 2014, Defendants Dr. Igbinosa and Dr. Winslow timely filed a reply to Plaintiffs' objections (Doc. 70), as did Defendants Beard, Brazelton, Brown, Cate, Hartley, Hubbard, Hysen, Meyer, Rothchild, Schwarzenegger, and Yates (Doc. 71). The Court has reviewed the F & Rs, as well as the parties' arguments for and against their adoption, and finds it appropriate to discuss the facts and the F & Rs only to the extent necessary to resolve Plaintiffs' objections.

For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS IN PART the F & Rs. Accordingly, Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.3

II. BACKGROUND

Valley Fever is the colloquial name for Coccidiodomycosis, " ‘an infectious disease caused by inhalation of a fungus (Coccidioides) that lives in the soil of dry, low rainfall areas. It is spread through spores that become airborne when the dirt they reside in is disturbed by digging, construction, or strong winds. There is no direct person-to-person transmission of infection.’ " Plata v. Brown, 2013 WL 3200587, *2 (N.D.Cal. June 24, 2013) (quoting court medical expert report).

Valley Fever "is not contagious between persons but to those who become infected it can be debilitating, disfiguring, and intensely painful." Compl. at ¶ 5. It is "a lifelong and crippling disease." Id. at ¶ 1. If it is "not treated quickly, accurately, and indefinitely, it can be fatal. Over (30) prisoners [at PVSP and ASP] have already died from the disease and many more live with serious medical complications from it." Id.

"[S]ome 60% of people who are exposed to the Coccidioides fungus do not show overt symptoms of illness." Id. at 43. Some individuals only develop "mild or moderate flu-like symptoms or no symptoms." Id. at ¶ 6. "[M]ost of the remaining 40% will show symptoms of a respiratory illness resembling the flu that may last weeks or months." Id. at ¶ 44. "But the disease can rapidly progress to a so-called disseminated form for some." Id.

"Valley Fever has the capacity to infect any person, regardless of race, health status or immunological strength. But it is currently undisputed and well-known that certain groups are much more likely than others to contract the potentially lethal disseminated form of Valley Fever." Id. at ¶ 84. The disseminated form is more likely to affect "certain ethnic and racial groups including African Americans, Filipinos and other Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians, as well as for anyone who may be immune-compromised or immune-suppressed, such as those taking medication for chronic arthritis

." Id. Filipinos and African–Americans, for instance, "have been shown to have up to a 200–fold increased risk of disseminated disease and an increased mortality rate." Id. at ¶ 86.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants knowingly placed inmates in prisons "where Valley Fever was already occurring in epidemic rates" and "failed to implement even rudimentary measures recommended by the correctional authority's own medical experts to protect Plaintiffs from the disease." Id. at ¶ 9; see also id. at ¶ 57 ("[T]he soil surrounding and under PVSP is densely contaminated with the Coccidioides fungus. Yet, Defendants failed to take even the most basic precautions to guard against exposure.").

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants could have taken a number of preventative measures to lower Plaintiffs' risk of contracting Valley Fever. Id. at ¶ 10. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that

Susceptible prisoners could have been diverted or transferred away from the so-called hyperendemic prisons, either by adoption of an appropriate policy or on a case-by-case basis through ministerial decisions. Or, as ... repeatedly recommended, Defendants could have implemented basic soil control measures at the prisons to reduce exposure: steps such as paving, landscaping, and soil stabilization. Further, prison authorities repeatedly recommended that prison ventilation systems be improved or that the existing ventilation systems be properly maintained to protect inmates against indoor exposure to the spores.

Id. Plaintiffs claim, however, that "Defendants took none of these actions." Id.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants knew as early as the fall of 2004 that "Central Valley prisons are located within areas which host the dangerous cocci fungus in the soil," that "Valley Fever has ‘potential lethality’ for people exposed to the [cocci] fungus," and that "construction activity may cause the [cocci fungus] to be blown into the air where it can be inhaled and pneumonia

can occur." Id. at ¶ 60. Nonetheless, "Defendants authorized major construction [in 2005], which churn[ed] the soil and thr[ew] the spores into the air, immediately adjacent to one of the most dangerously infectious prisons." Id. at ¶ 11.

According to Plaintiffs, in 2005 PVSP "began to experience an epidemic of Valley Fever, including multiple deaths from the disease." Id. at ¶ 62. "Infection rates at PVSP ... were as much as 1,000 times the rate seen in the local population, yet state officials continued to transfer susceptible and non-susceptible inmates alike to th[e] prison." Id. at ¶ 63. By 2006, there were over 1,100 cases and eight inmate deaths. Id. at ¶ 64.4 "[I]ncidence rates increased at PVSP by more than 445% between 2001 and 2005, and by over 2,500% by 2006." Id. at ¶ 65.

By August 2006, "Defendants knew they were housing inmates in hyper-endemic locations." Id. at ¶ 70. Plaintiffs allege that "[e]xperts, including [California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") ] staff, attributed the rapid and continued increase in Valley Fever cases at PVSP in 2005/2006 to the new construction initiated next to the prison." Id. at ¶ 74. "Defendants ... multiplied the risk to inmates at PVSP when they decided to construct a new mental hospital facility ... less than 200 yards away" from PVSP. Id. at ¶ 75.

The construction "churned up an inordinate amount of the ... fungal spores into the ambient air in and around the prison." Id. at ¶ 77. Plaintiffs allege "Defendants recklessly exposed the inmate population and failed to take any adequate precautions to protect inmates from the spores that would inevitably migrate onto the PVSP grounds and facility as a direct result of the soil disruption caused by the construction." Id. at ¶ 78.

"In 2006 the California Department of Public Health, Center for Infectious Disease conducted an epidemiological study of Valley Fever in California prisons," which was published in January 2007. Id. at ¶ 108. The study found that the incidence rate at PVSP was "3 times that of the entire rest of Fresno County combined." The study recommended relocating the highest risk groups to non-hyper-endemic areas "and, at a minimum, to take steps at the prisons to minimize exposure, including ventilation, respiratory protection, and dust suppression and soil control." Id. at ¶ 110. Plaintiffs allege Defendants were aware of the study and its recommended "mitigation measures." Id. at ¶ 111.

In June 2007, the California Correctional Health Care Services issued recommendations that included, among other things, "proceeding with environmental mitigation in the prisons through landscaping with ground cover, [ ] placing concrete and other dust reducing materials on the grounds ... [and] continu[ing] the diversion and relocation of inmates at high risk for [the Valley Fever]." Id. at ¶ 79.

Also in 2007, a Fresno County Grand Jury "undertook the task...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Ronje v. Kramer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • December 6, 2016
    ...be reasoned that the prisoner is involuntarily exposed to a risk that society would not tolerate."); but c.f.Beagle v. Schwarzenegger, 107 F.Supp.3d 1056, 1068 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (finding that mere exposure to valley fever is sufficient to state a claim); Jackson v. Davey, No. 1:14-cv-1311-LJ......
  • Smith v. Schwarzenegger, LEAD CASE NO.: 1:14–cv–60–LJO–SAB
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • October 7, 2015
    ...risk for contracting Valley Fever or developing disseminated Valley Fever to state an Eighth Amendment claim. See, e.g., Beagle, 2014 WL 9866913, at *10 ; Jackson v. Davey, No. 1:14–cv–1311–LJO–MJS (PC), 2015 WL 3402992, at *5 (E.D.Cal. May 27, 2015). Given this obvious, legitimate, and rea......
  • Jordan v. Hung
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • May 23, 2018
    ...a claim under the Eighth Amendment based solely on the exposure to and contraction of Valley Fever); but c.f. Beagle v. Schwarzenegger, 107 F.Supp.3d 1056, 1068 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (finding that mere exposure to valley fever is sufficient to state a claim); Jackson v. Davey, No. 1:14-cv-1311-L......
  • Boyce v. Fox
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • January 27, 2017
    ..."[A]n inmate's mere exposure to a dangerous condition may provide grounds for an Eighth Amendment claim." Beagle v. Schwarzenegger, 107 F.Supp.3d 1056, 1068 (E.D. Cal. July 25, 2014) (discussing how, under Farmer and other Ninth Circuit cases, the correct issue is whether prison officials w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Part two: case summaries by major topic.
    • United States
    • Detention and Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 68, December 2016
    • December 1, 2016
    ...Inc., Dixon Correctional Center, Illinois) U.S. District Court CONTAGIOUS DISEASES DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE Beagle v. Schwarzenegger, 107 F.Supp.3d 1056 (E.D. Cal. 2014). Former and current state prisoners who contracted "Valley Fever" during their terms of incarceration brought a [section] ......
  • Part one: complete case summaries in alphabetical order.
    • United States
    • Detention and Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 68, December 2016
    • December 1, 2016
    ...(Washington County Detention Center, Maryland) MEDICAL CARE: Contagious Diseases, Deliberate Indifference Beagle v. Schwarzenegger, 107 F.Supp.3d 1056 (E.D. Cal. 2014). Former and current state prisoners who contracted "Valley Fever" during their terms of incarceration brought a [section] 1......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT