Shabazz v. Beard, et al.

Filing 29

ORDER adopting in part and declining in part 27 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and referring this matter to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/22/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AMIR SHABAZZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:15-cv-00881-DAD-EPG

v.
JEFFREY A. BEARD et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND
DECLINING TO ADOPT IN PART
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS;
AND REFERRING THIS MATTER TO THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS
(Doc. No. 27)

17
18
19

Plaintiff Amir Shabazz is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this

20
21

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter proceeds on plaintiff’s second

22

amended complaint, which alleges claims under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well

23

as the Federal Tort Claims Act. (Doc. No. 26.) On November 1, 2016, the assigned magistrate

24

judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s second amended

25

complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. (Doc. No. 27.) The findings and

26

recommendations were served on plaintiff with instructions that any objections thereto must be

27

filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed his objections on November 18, 2016. (Doc. No. 28.)

28

/////
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

2

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

3

objections, the court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and

4

proper analysis, with the exception of the court’s recommended dismissal of plaintiff’s Eighth

5

Amendment claim brought pursuant to § 1983.
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint alleges as follows. In 2009, he was transferred

6
7

from Lancaster State Prison to Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”). While in transit and at

8

Delano State Prison, he made medical staff aware of his history of chronic asthma and viral

9

Hepatitis C, and that he was susceptible to contracting coccidioidomycosis, or “Valley Fever.”

10

Plaintiff asked to remain at Delano State Prison or be transferred a different prison that did not

11

have a known Valley Fever epidemic. Prison officials disregarded plaintiff’s request, and after he

12

was transferred to PVSP, plaintiff was diagnosed with Valley Fever in 2010. (See Doc. No. 26.)

13

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim is based on prison officials’ alleged deliberate indifference

14

in placing him at PVSP despite knowledge of the risks that such a placement would pose.

15

In the pending findings and recommendations, the assigned magistrate judge concluded

16

that plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable claim based on a number of other district court

17

decisions dismissing similar claims arising from the housing of prisoners in a Valley Fever

18

endemic area. (Doc. No. 27 at 5–6.) Alternatively, the magistrate judge found that even if such a

19

claim is cognizable, prison officials were entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.

20

(Id. at 6.) While the court acknowledges there has been a wide ranging discussion regarding the

21

propriety of a civil rights claim relating to Valley Fever, this court cannot find binding authority

22

that categorically excludes all such claims from being brought under the Eighth Amendment.

23

Because plaintiff has alleged that certain prison officials were aware of his susceptibility to

24

Valley Fever, that he was placed at PVSP despite of these warnings, and that he was later

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
2

1

diagnosed as having contracted Valley Fever, the court concludes that he has pled sufficient facts

2

to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim.1

3

Moreover, the court declines to address the issue of qualified immunity at this early stage

4

of the case. As a number of recent Ninth Circuit opinions have suggested, dismissal of these

5

types of cases on qualified immunity grounds before defendants are required to file an answer is

6

premature. See, e.g., Sullivan v. Kramer, 609 F. App’x 435, 436 (9th Cir. 2015); Samuels v.

7

Ahlin, 584 F. App’x 636, 637 (9th Cir. 2014); Johnson v. Pleasant Valley State Prison, 505 F.

8

App’x 631, 632 (9th Cir. 2013).2

9

Accordingly,

10

1. The November 1, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 27) are adopted,

11

with the exception of the recommended dismissal of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

12

claim, as described herein;

13

2. Plaintiff may proceed on his Eighth Amendment claim in his second amended

14

complaint; and

15

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further

16
17

proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:

February 22, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
1

25
26
27
28

As the magistrate judge correctly pointed out, however, plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim
may not be brought against certain defendants in their supervisorial capacities based on plaintiff’s
failure to adequately link an affirmative act or omission with the denial of plaintiff’s
constitutional rights. (See Doc. No. 27 at 7.)
2

Citation to these unpublished Ninth Circuit opinions is appropriate pursuant to Ninth Circuit
Rule 36-3(b).
3