Jackson v. California
| Decision Date | 19 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:13-cv-01055-LJO-SAB |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | ARTHUR DUANE JACKSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. |
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Currently before the Court is Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 89.) The Court heard oral arguments on April 29, 2015. (ECF No. 101.) Counsel Brian Bush and Maria Weitz appeared for Plaintiffs, and counsel Jon Allin and Michelle Angus appeared for Defendants. Id. Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto, arguments presented at the April 29, 2015, hearing, the Plaintiffs' supplemental briefing and Defendants' response, and the Court's file, the Court issues the following findings and recommendations.
Plaintiffs Arthur Duane Jackson, Leonard M. Lujan, Marcus Jackson, Rodney Taylor, Lacedric Johnson, L.T. Belton, and Norman Johnson filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 on July 9, 2013, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of allothers similarly situated. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Matthew Cate, Jeffrey Beard, P.D. Brazelton, and James D. Hartley for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eights Amendment, racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 1983, racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and negligence in violation of state law. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 25, 2013. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on October 16, 2013. (ECF No. 16.) On October 18, 2013, the Court issued an order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot. (ECF No. 24.)
On November 4, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 25.) On February 20, 2014, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending that Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part and that Plaintiffs be granted an opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. (ECF No. 38.) On March 10, 2014, District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill issued an order adopting the findings and recommendations and dismissing Plaintiff's first amended complaint for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 41.)
On March 24, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 43.) On April 28, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. (ECF No. 44.) On July 30, 2014, the undersigned issued a findings and recommendation recommending that Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. On August 20, 2014, District Judge O'Neill issued an order adopting the findings and recommendations and dismissing Plaintiff's claims based upon the contracts clause of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (ECF No. 68.)
On October 1, 2014, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 74.) On February 2, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 89.) Plaintiffs filed an opposition on April 10, 2015. (ECF No. 97.) Defendants filed a reply on April 22, 2015. (ECF No. 98.) After the hearing on April 29, 2015, Plaintiffs' filed a supplemental brief on May 1, 2015. (ECF No. 103.) Defendants filed a response on May 6, 2015. (ECF No. 104.)
Plaintiffs are current or former inmates who allegedly contracted Coccidiododomycosis, commonly known as Valley Fever, while incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP") or Avenal State Prison ("ASP"). (Sec. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3-10,1 ECF No. 43.) This action is brought on behalf of three subclasses of Plaintiffs: 1) African-American inmates, 2) inmates over the age of 55, or 3) immune-compromised inmates who were incarcerated at PVSP or ASP from July 8, 2009 through the present and contracted Valley Fever. (Id. at ¶ 20.)
Plaintiffs allege that Valley Fever is a serious infectious disease which is contracted by inhalation of an airborne fungus and it is prevalent in the San Joaquin Valley of California. (Id. at ¶ 30.) Epidemiological studies have established that African-Americans, persons over the age of 55, and those in an immune-compromised state are at higher risk for developing Valley Fever. (Id. at ¶ 32.)
In June of 1994, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC") published an article reporting on the impact of Valley Fever in California and that 70% of the reported cases in California arose in the San Joaquin Valley. (Id. at ¶ 36.) In September 1995, the CDCR issued a memorandum describing the illness, its long term effects, and the increased risk of acquiring Valley Fever in the subclasses identified by Plaintiffs. (Id. at ¶ 37.) In September of 1996, an article was published by two doctors from the University of California-San Diego, School of Medicine, commenting on the Valley Fever epidemic of 1991-1993. (Id. at ¶ 40.)
In 1996, the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases held an International Conference on Coccidiododomycosis and published a summary of the articles discussed at the conference. Included in these articles was the "California Health Services Policy Statement on Coccidiododomycosis," which stated that from 1991 to 1993, California was spending $60 million in health care costs from Valley Fever infections. (Id. at ¶ 41.) The report recognized that Plaintiffs' subclasses were at a higher risk for developing Valley Fever. (Id. at ¶ 41.) Thereport also identified the areas that house PVSP and ASP as the most likely place to generate Valley Fever infections and recommended preventive measures, such as using spherulin skin tests to identify those not vulnerable to infection, the use of dust control measures, masks and wetting of the soil. (Id. at ¶ 41.)
In 2005, in Plata v. Schwarzenegger, No. C01-1351, the Northern District of California ordered the California Correctional Health Care Services ("CCHCS") into a Receivership to address grossly sub-standard medical care provided to those in the custody of the CDCR. (Id. at ¶ 42.) The Plata Court has mandated that preventative measures recommended by the Federal Receiver in 2006 be implemented to protect individuals from becoming infected with Valley Fever. (Id. at ¶ 43.)
In 2006, the California Department of Public Health ("CDPH") issued a report addressing Valley Fever at PVSP and ASP and made suggestions to reduce the amount of Valley Fever infections experienced by individuals in Plaintiffs' subclasses. (Id. at ¶ 45.) These suggestions were not implemented by the CDCR. (Id. at ¶ 45.)
Beginning in 2007, a Fresno County Grand Jury evaluated the problematic health care at PVSP and had made a series of recommendations. (Id. at ¶ 55.) The Grand Jury observed that "[l]ocal prison officials are well aware of [the Valley Fever] health crisis," and stated that inmates and staff were at risk from Valley Fever. (Id. at ¶ 55.)
A memo dated November 20, 2007, to institutional staff, including the Wardens of eight prisons located in the hyper endemic area, discussed the significant increase in the number of Valley Fever cases among inmates at PVSP and ASP in 2005. (Id. at ¶ 60.) The memo recognized a mitigation approach that would inmates who met the "cocci susceptibility exclusion criteria" out of PVSP and ASP. (Id. at ¶ 60.)
In June 2007, the Statewide Medical Director for California Prison Healthcare Services submitted a report to the federal receiver entitled "Recommendations to Coccidioidomycosis Mitigation in Prisons in the Hyperndemic Areas of California." The report indicated that Defendants were recommending certain additional measures for immediate implementation, including environmental mitigation techniques at PVSP and ASP, deferring any new constructionthat would result in additional prisoners being housed in the hyperendemic areas, providing indoor recreation areas for inmates to use during high wind/dust events, and continuing to exclude certain inmates from facilities in these areas. (Id. at ¶ 71.)
The Federal Receiver, J. Clark Kelso, issued an April 16, 2012, report indicating that the Valley Fever health crisis had not abated. (Id. at ¶ 75.) In April 2012, the CCHCS also issued a report addressing Valley Fever in California Prisons which found that between 2006 and 2010 no action taken by CDCR had any effect on the incidence rates of Valley Fever at PVSP or ASP. (Id. at ¶ 76.) The report confirmed that African-American men died from Valley Fever at far higher rates than the general inmate population. (Id.)
On November 14, 2012, Mr. Kelso recommended several actions that could be undertaken immediately. (Id. at 78.) On December 3, 2012, Defendants Brown and Beard authorized CDCR to request assistance from CDPH. (Id. at 79.)
On April 29, 2013, the Federal Receiver, J. Clark Kelso, issued a Cocci Exclusion Policy which was amended on May 1, 2013, directing PVSP and ASP to exclude all high risk inmates, including African-Americans, inmates over the age of 55, and those who were immune compromised. (Id. at 72.)
Plaintiffs in this action allege that the defendants have been aware, since at least 2006, that Valley Fever affected those inmates in Plaintiff's subclasses and have taken some steps to reduce Valley Fever in the inmate population, but those efforts have been unsuccessful. (Id. at ¶ 48.) Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have failed to take action to protect individuals in Plaintiffs' subclasses and they are seeking future health care and health costs after they are released from custody and compensatory damages. (Id. at ¶¶ 44, 47.)
Plaintiff A. Jackson, an African-American inmate...
To continue reading
Request your trial