
A guard closes the main gate during a rally outside the gate to address the COVID-19 outbreak at San Quentin State Prison on Thursday, July 9, 2020. (Sherry Lavers/Marin Independent Journal)
A federal appeals court has ruled that a lawsuit filed by the widow of a San Quentin inmate who died of COVID-19 can move forward.
The ruling Tuesday from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned a lower court ruling that had blocked the trial from moving forward.
Jacqueline Hampton is suing the state, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), San Quentin State Prison, and certain prison officials in the death of her husband Michael Hampton.
In August, the 9th Circuit issued a similar decision in an appeal arising from nearly identical allegations. That suit was brought by the family of Gilbert Polanco, a San Quentin prison guard who also died during the coronavirus outbreak.
“Whether we’re talking about prison guards or prisoners, we’re talking about human beings who were equally affected,” said Michael Haddad, a lawyer representing both families. “The courts are now saying that when you create such a deadly environment in prison, it impacts everyone.”
CDCR spokesman Todd Javornik said the department “does not comment on litigation.”
Michael Hampton, who was serving a three-time sentence for drug-related theft, died of COVID-19 in prison on September 25, 2020. Hampton had several health conditions that put him at higher risk of becoming infected with COVID-19, including obesity, high blood pressure and pre-diabetes.
Hampton began experiencing symptoms in early June, shortly after 122 inmates from the California Institution for Men, where there was a serious COVID-19 outbreak, were moved to San Quentin. Hampton was placed on a ventilator in early August.
The outbreak sparked by the transfer resulted in the death of 28 prisoners and Polanco. More than 2,100 prisoners and 270 staff members were infected.
In her lawsuit, Hampton’s widow claimed that the prison’s failure to protect her husband from the outbreak violated her statutory rights and her rights under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.” .
Prison officials claimed immunity under the Public Preparedness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP). The law limits legal liability for the administration of medical measures in times of crisis.
Congress passed the PREP Act in 2005 to encourage the development and deployment of medical countermeasures such as diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines by limiting legal liability.
But Judge Michelle Friedland wrote in her decision that the question of whether the defendants are exempt under the PrEP Act depends on whether the plaintiffs’ claims are for harm caused by the medical prescription.
In this example, Friedland said, most of the men transferred had not been tested for COVID-19 for more than three weeks, and in far greater numbers than in coronavirus-era San Quentin. No one was properly screened for symptoms before being packed onto the buses. Capacity limits that CDCR mandated for inmate safety.
Friedland wrote that although some inmates on the bus showed symptoms, the prison department did not isolate newly arriving inmates. Instead, most of the prisoners transferred were moved to a housing unit with latticed doors and allowed to use the same showers and eat in the same mess hall as other prisoners.
Friedland also wrote that two days after the transfer, Marin County Public Health Officer Matt Willis contacted the jail and recommended that the transferred inmates be isolated; All exposed inmates and staff will be required to wear masks; And movement of employees between different housing units should be restricted to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Prison officials told Willis he did not have the authority to take measures in the state prison.
Rejecting prison officials’ claim of immunity, Friedland wrote, “The PREP Act provides immunity only from claims that relate to the ‘administration or use by a person’ of a covered countermeasure – the nonadministration of such measure.” or non-administration not-use.”
The defendants in the lawsuit also argued for limited immunity on the grounds that they faced an impossible choice: house the high-risk inmates at the California Institution for Men, a prison experiencing an active COVID-19 outbreak, or release the inmates Transferring out of that jail. He stressed that in any case he would have put some prisoners in danger and in doing so he would have risked liability.
But Friedland said that argument fails because it is not the decision to transfer the prisoners that is being challenged, but rather “the decisions the defendants made in making the transfer without reducing the risks to the transferred prisoners to San Quentin.” “Increased risk to prisoners.” ,
Haddad said the decision “just means we can move forward and actually bring the case to light.”
“We haven’t even begun the search yet, so just imagine all the emails, text messages, policies and other records we need to look at right now,” he said.
Haddad said the decision also clears the way for other lawsuits. Haddad said he is representing two other clients who are bringing wrongful death cases against the state related to similar circumstances, and he is aware of two others.
He said a class action suit is also in the works and that several inmates have filed suit on their own without the assistance of a lawyer.