Smith v. Schwarzenegger, LEAD CASE NO.: 1:14–cv–60–LJO–SAB

• Decision Date: 07 October 2015
• Docket Number: 1:14–cv–1395–LJO–SAB,1:13–cv–1822–AWI–GSA,1:14–cv–369–MJS,1:14–cv–430–LJO–SAB,1:14–cv–1074–LJO–GSA,1:14–cv–816–LJO–SAB,LEAD CASE NO.: 1:14–cv–60–LJO–SAB,1:14–cv–1697–LJO–DLB,MEMBER CASE NOS.: 1:13–cv–1618–AWI–SKO,1:14–cv–1226–LJO–SAB,1:14–cv–1559–LJO–SAB
• Citation: 137 F.Supp.3d 1233
• Parties: Corey Lamar Smith, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

137 F.Supp.3d 1233

Corey Lamar Smith, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al., Defendants.

LEAD CASE NO.: 1:14–cv–60–LJO–SAB

MEMBER CASE NOS.: 1:13–cv–1618–AWI–SKO

1:13–cv–1822–AWI–GSA

1:14–cv–369–MJS

1:14–cv–430–LJO–SAB

1:14–cv–816–LJO–SAB

1:14–cv–1074–LJO–GSA

1:14–cv–1226–LJO–SAB

1:14–cv–1395–LJO–SAB

1:14–cv–1559–LJO–SAB

1:14–cv–1697–LJO–DLB

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Signed October 7, 2015

Benjamin Laurence Pavone, Pavone & Fonner, David Elliot, Law Offices of David Elliot, San Diego, CA, Edward Burns, Burns & Schaldenbrand, Oceanside, CA, Gregg David Zucker, Victoria Elizabeth Niewrzol, Affeld Grivakes Zucker LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Matthew B. Pavone, Law Offices of Matthew B. Pavone, Novato, CA, for Plaintiffs.

David Eugene Brice, Maureen C. Onyeagbako, Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Jon S. Allin, California Department of Justice, Michelle L. Angus, Attorney General's Office of the State of California, 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 RE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 164) RE DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS (Docs. 138, 140)

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL

, District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Coccidioidomycosis

, commonly known as "Valley Fever," is an infection caused by inhaling the spores of the fungus Coccidioides, which is endemic to the soil throughout the southwestern United States, and is particularly prevalent in California's San Joaquin Valley.¹ Valley Fever infections generally cause mild flu-like symptoms (or no symptoms at all), but the "disseminated" form of the disease, which occurs when the infection disseminates beyond the lungs and into other parts of the body, can cause serious, life-long health complications, and even death. Some groups of individuals, including certain ethnic groups, individuals over the age of 55, and individuals with compromised immune systems, are particularly susceptible of developing disseminated Valley Fever.

This consolidated action is one of many civil rights cases currently pending in this district brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

("§ 1983") by current and former inmates who contracted Valley Fever while incarcerated at prisons located in the San Joaquin Valley, where cocci naturally exist. Plaintiffs, 159 current and former inmates who contracted Valley Fever while incarcerated in San Joaquin Valley prisons, bring this class action against Defendants, various California prison officials, for (1) violation of the Eighth Amendment and (2) negligence. See Doc. 113, Consolidated Amended Complaint ("CAC"), at 2. Plaintiffs' claims are premised on their assertion that Defendants' intentional actions and inaction unconstitutionally and negligently exposed them to an unreasonable risk of contracting Valley Fever and, ultimately, caused them to contract the disease.

Currently pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint ("CAC") in its entirety. Doc. 138. The Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations ("F & Rs"), Doc. 164, to which the parties filed objections and responses. Docs. 175, 177–79. The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claim without leave to amend on the ground Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from the claim. Doc. 164 at 36. Because that claim is the only basis for federal court jurisdiction, the Magistrate Judge further recommends declining to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' negligence claim and dismissing it without leave to amend. Id.

In addition, after the F & Rs issued and Plaintiffs filed their objections to them, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the CAC to add an additional defendant (Doc. 182), and the parties filed a stipulation concerning Plaintiffs' naming another defendant in the CAC (Doc. 183), both of which were stayed by the Magistrate Judge pending the Court's consideration of the F & Rs. Doc. 184 at 2. The Magistrate Judge reasoned that any amendment would be futile if the Court adopted the F & Rs. Id.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)

, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the F & Rs and the relevant record. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005) ; Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendations to dismiss without leave to amend Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claim and to decline supplemental jurisdiction over their negligence claim.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND²

Plaintiffs' 276–page CAC names as Defendants former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, 13 various California prison officials, and Doe Defendants 1–50.³ CAC at 6–7. Plaintiffs bring claims against Defendants for (1) violation of their Eighth Amendment rights and (2) negligence under California state law.⁴ The crux of Plaintiffs' claims is that Defendants' acts and omissions recklessly "caused the Plaintiffs to contract Valley Fever, a lifelong crippling disease." Id. at ¶¶ 1, 9. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege Defendants knew that housing inmates, like Plaintiffs, in prisons where Valley Fever was known to be hyper-endemic⁵ while failing to implement remedial and preventative measures⁶ to reduce inmate exposure to cocci "posed an unacceptable risk of irreparable harm." Id. at ¶¶ 10, 12, 52. In addition, Defendants allowed "major construction" at the prisons, which churned the soil and released cocci into the air. Id. at ¶ 15. Plaintiffs' allegations are informed by, among other things:

a) review and analysis of public documents published by the State of California, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and other public agencies; b) review and analysis of public filings, press releases and other publications by certain of the defendants and other non-parties; c) review of news articles, medical and other reference sources, as well as postings on the State of California CDCR and correctional facility websites concerning the issues described [in the CAC]; and d) review of other available information concerning CDCR's operations, the medical conditions and treatment described [in the CAC], and the individual defendants.

Id. at ¶ 3.

The incidence rates of Valley Fever at these prisons were significantly higher than the rates in the counties in which they are located. For instance, "[i]n comparison with the rate in California (7/100,000), the rate at PVSP was 1,001 times higher (7011/100,000), the rate at ASP was 189 times higher (1326/100,000) and the rate at WSP was 114 times higher (800/100,000)." Id. at ¶ 64. The rates at these prisons were much higher than the rate in Kern County, the county with the highest incidence rate of Valley Fever in California (135/100,000). Id. at ¶ 66. The rate of Valley Fever cases at PVSP was 38 times the rate of Coalinga residents and 600 times the rate in Fresno County. Id. at ¶ 69. Further, the rate at PVSP was 6 times higher than the rate at the adjacent mental health facility. Id. at ¶ 76.

African–Americans, Filipinos, individuals over the age of 55, and individuals with "pre-existing health conditions" or compromised/suppressed immune systems are more susceptible to contracting Valley Fever and are more prone to developing disseminated Valley Fever. Id. at ¶¶ 71, 81, 84, 86, 2633. African–Americans accounted for approximately 68% of those infected and died at approximately twice the rate of non-black inmates. Id. at ¶ 67. "In fact, African–American prisoners comprised 71% of the 34 Valley Fever deaths in CDCR prisons between 2006 and 2011." Id. at ¶ 88. In 2013, medical experts found that 70% of the 36 inmate deaths caused by Valley Fever were African–Americans and 76% had an immune-compromised condition, such as HIV or diabetes

. Id. at ¶ 2635.⁷

Between 2006 and 2012, medical experts, CDCR, California public health agencies, a Fresno County Grand jury, and various media organizations had researched the Valley Fever "epidemic" at San Joaquin Valley prisons, and circulated numerous reports, memoranda, and studies to prison officials. See id. at ¶¶ 91–127. In addition, in 2012, the federal court-appointed Receiver⁸ managing the California State prison system's health care program issued "Recommendations for Immediate Response to Coccidioidomycosis

in CDCR Prisons." Id. at 2632. Plaintiffs allege Defendants were fully aware of the information discussed in these documents, but "took no action." Id. at ¶¶ 91, 128–29. Defendants failed to prevent Plaintiffs and other high-risk inmates from being housed at hyper-endemic prisons, although they had the means and ability to do so. Id. at ¶¶ 143, 145. Similarly, Defendants failed to implement remedial and preventative measures to reduce the risk of infection at the prisons, although they had the ability and means to do so. Id. at ¶¶ 179–80.

The thrust of Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claim is that Defendants knew of the "serious, epidemic level of risk of harm," id. at ¶ 2598, posed by cocci at San Joaquin Valley prisons, yet consciously decided not to do anything to mitigate those risks or to protect Plaintiffs from them. Id. at 258; id. at ¶ 2648–49. "In fact, Defendants not only failed to implement remedial measures to reduce Plaintiffs' risk of infection, they persisted in practices that increased that risk." Id. at ¶ 2642. Specifically, Defendants continued with construction at the prisons, which churned soil and released cocci, thereby exacerbating the Valley Fever problem. Id. at ¶¶ 2643–45. These acts and omissions also provided the basis for Plaintiffs' negligence claim brought under California law.

Defendants move to dismiss both claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)

. Docs. 138, 140. Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claim because they did not violate clearly established law....