Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-04635/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-04635-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EDWIN JAY HUTCHISON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY 

AUTHORITY, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 13-cv-04635-CW 

ORDER REVIEWING SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND ISSUING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR TWO COGNIZABLE 

CLAIMS 

Plaintiff Edwin Jay Hutchison, a state prisoner incarcerated 

at San Quentin State Prison (SQSP), filed a pro se civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages for the 

alleged violation of his constitutional rights by the California 

Prison Industry Authority (CALPIA), operating under the auspices 

of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(CDCR), and individuals who are employees of CALPIA or of SQSP. 

On April 4, 2014 the Court ordered service of the following 

cognizable claims: (1) an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs against Andrew Deems, Chief 

Executive Officer of Health Care Services at SQSP, for creating a 

policy, custom or practice of failing to test inmates who may 

have been exposed to asbestos; (2) an Eighth Amendment claim for 

Case 4:13-cv-04635-CW Document 41 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 9
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

deliberate indifference to hazardous conditions against CALPIA 

and employees of CALPIA and SQSP; and (3) a state law claim 

against CALPIA for violation of California Government Code 

section 835. On January 14, 2015, the Court issued an order 

granting, in part, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, in which it 

dismissed all claims with the exception of an Eighth Amendment 

claim against CEO Deems for creating a policy, custom or practice 

of failing to test inmates who may have been exposed to asbestos 

and lead. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a second 

amended complaint (2AC) asserting an Eighth Amendment claim 

against specific defendants, in their individual capacities, 

based on allegations of conduct undertaken by them that prevented 

or delayed Plaintiff from receiving medical treatment for 

symptoms caused by exposure to asbestos. Plaintiff timely filed 

a 2AC, which the Court now reviews. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Standard of Review 

 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any 

case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity 

or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, 

malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted 

or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be 

liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must 

Case 4:13-cv-04635-CW Document 41 Filed 03/09/15 Page 2 of 9
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the 

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and 

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting 

under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 

(1988). 

Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the defendant’s 

actions both actually and proximately caused the deprivation of a 

federally protected right. Lemire v. Cal. Dept. Corrections & 

Rehabilitation, 756 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. 

Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of 

Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives 

another of a constitutional right within the meaning of § 1983 if 

he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative 

act or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to 

do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. 

Leer, 844 F.2d at 633. Under no circumstances is there 

respondeat superior liability under § 1983. Lemire, 756 F.3d at 

1074. Or, in layman's terms, under no circumstances is there 

liability under § 1983 solely because one is responsible for the 

actions or omissions of another. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 

1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home 

Village, 723 F.2d 675, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1984). 

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations 

 In his 2AC, Plaintiff alleges the following occurred during 

the relevant time period. As a result of being exposed to 

asbestos while he was an employee at the CALPIA furniture 

factory, Plaintiff suffers from industrial lung injury. 

 Ronald Glass, Industrial Supervisor I of CALPIA, was 

Case 4:13-cv-04635-CW Document 41 Filed 03/09/15 Page 3 of 9
4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

responsible for maintaining the CALPIA safety program, including 

notification to others when an inmate employee was injured at the 

CALPIA factory. On February 27, 2012, Glass submitted a report 

on the effects of asbestos exposure on inmates, but he concealed 

the report from Dr. John Cranshaw, who was designated to test 

Plaintiff for symptoms from asbestos and lead exposure, CEO Deems 

and Plaintiff. This action delayed Plaintiff from receiving a 

diagnosis and treatment of his industrial lung disease. Also, 

Glass had a duty to ensure that Plaintiff received medical care 

when he exhibited lung disease symptoms, but Glass failed to do 

so. 

 Gary Loredo, Industrial Supervisor II at CALPIA, was 

responsible for the CALPIA inmate employees, including Plaintiff. 

His duties included monitoring and reviewing safety programs and 

preventing injuries to inmate employees. Loredo processed 

Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim and, therefore, knew of 

Plaintiff’s injuries from asbestos, but he did nothing to ensure 

that Plaintiff received medical treatment. 

 Philip Earley, CALPIA manager, was responsible for 

supervising inmate employees and preventing their injury. When 

Plaintiff learned of his exposure to asbestos and lead at the 

CALPIA factory, he submitted, on July 4, 2013, a health care 

services request form to Dr. Cranshaw requesting a comprehensive 

blood and lungs test to determine if he had symptoms from 

exposure to asbestos or lead. Earley informed Dr. Cranshaw that 

Plaintiff “has not been identified by CALPIA as significantly 

exposed to lead or asbestos, therefore, there is nothing the SQSP 

Medical Department can do to evaluate him.” By taking this 

Case 4:13-cv-04635-CW Document 41 Filed 03/09/15 Page 4 of 9
5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

action, Earley hindered, prevented and delayed Plaintiff from 

obtaining a medical diagnosis and treatment, thus exacerbating 

his illness. 

 B. Smith, branch manager at CALPIA, was responsible for 

responding to inmate employees’ complaints, including appeals 

about the behavior of staff members. On July 6, 2012, Plaintiff 

filed an inmate appeal about Earley, Loredo and Glass’s denials 

of his requests for medical testing for asbestos and lead 

exposure. Smith conducted an “appeal inquiry” with Earley and 

Glass and indicated the appeal was partially granted because he 

had made the inquiry, but he did not rule that Plaintiff would 

receive medical testing or treatment. Instead, Early issued an 

August 15, 2012 memorandum stating that Plaintiff’s appeal had 

been reviewed, the issue had been addressed and CALPIA had closed 

the matter. 

 On August 21, 2012, CEO Deems also reviewed and denied 

Plaintiff’s appeal requesting testing for asbestos and lead 

exposure. 

 Luu Rogers, an industrial supervisor at CALPIA, was 

responsible for supervising inmate work crews in maintenance and 

repair activities. He trained and supervised inmate employees, 

including Plaintiff, in preventive maintenance and repair of 

industrial systems, equipment and facilities and was responsible 

for the enforcement of safety rules and regulations. 

 A February 16, 2011 CDCR Memorandum stated that inmates 

working in certain areas of CALPIA were being exposed to 

contaminants that could be hazardous to themselves and staff. 

This memorandum provided Defendants with actual knowledge of 

Case 4:13-cv-04635-CW Document 41 Filed 03/09/15 Page 5 of 9
6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Plaintiff’s need for medical care from lead and asbestos 

exposure. On June 6, 2012, SQSP Correctional Lieutenant K. Evans 

filed an incident report citing a “potential hazardous material 

situation in the PIA mattress factory/involving asbestos and lead 

paint.” Other incident reports were filed on June 6, June 7, and 

June 14, 2012 documenting asbestos and lead exposure at the 

CALPIA factory. These reports placed Defendants on notice of 

Plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and lead at the CALPIA factory. 

 Liberally construed, the allegations in the 2AC state a 

cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Glass, Loredo, Earley, 

Smith, Deems and Rogers for being deliberately indifferent to 

Plaintiff’s serious medical need by preventing or delaying him 

from receiving medical treatment for a disease caused by exposure 

to asbestos, thus, exacerbating the disease and inducing him to 

continue to work under hazardous conditions. See Johns-Manville 

Prods. Corp. v. Sup. Ct., 27 Cal. 3d 465, 473-77 (1980). 

CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows: 

 1. Plaintiff has stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim 

against Deems for creating a policy, procedure or practice that 

prevented the testing and treatment of inmates for symptoms from 

exposure to asbestos and lead. Plaintiff has stated a cognizable 

Eighth Amendment claim against Glass, Loredo, Earley, Smith, 

Deems and Rogers for concealing from Plaintiff and from Dr. 

Cranshaw the fact that Plaintiff had been exposed to asbestos or 

lead, thereby preventing him from receiving a diagnosis and 

treatment for industrial lung disease, thus, aggravating the 

injury and inducing him to continue to work under hazardous 

Case 4:13-cv-04635-CW Document 41 Filed 03/09/15 Page 6 of 9
7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

conditions. 

 2. Defendants Glass, Loredo, Earley, Smith, Deems and Rogers 

have been served with the complaint, answered it and filed a 

motion to dismiss, which was granted, in part. Within twentyeight days from the date of this Order, Defendants shall file a 

motion for summary judgment addressing Plaintiff’s two remaining 

cognizable claims. The motion shall be supported by adequate 

factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. If Defendants are of the 

opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, 

they shall so inform the Court prior to the date the summary 

judgment motion is due. All papers filed with the Court shall be 

promptly served on Plaintiff. 

 At the time of filing the motion for summary judgment, 

Defendants shall comply with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in 

Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012), and provide 

Plaintiff with notice of what is required of him to oppose a 

summary judgment motion. 

 3. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary 

judgment shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendants 

no later than twenty-eight days after the date on which 

Defendants’ motion is filed. 

 Before filing his opposition, Plaintiff is advised to read 

the notice that will be provided to him by Defendants when the 

motion is filed, Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (party opposing 

summary judgment must come forward with evidence showing triable 

issues of material fact on every essential element of his claim). 

Case 4:13-cv-04635-CW Document 41 Filed 03/09/15 Page 7 of 9
8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Plaintiff is cautioned that because he bears the burden of 

proving his allegations in this case, he must be prepared to 

produce evidence in support of those allegations when he files 

his opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion. Such 

evidence may include sworn declarations from himself and other 

witnesses to the incident, and copies of documents authenticated 

by sworn declaration. Plaintiff will not be able to avoid 

summary judgment simply by repeating the allegations of his 

complaint. 

 4. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 

fourteen days after the date Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

 5. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the 

reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless 

the Court so orders at a later date. 

 6. Discovery may be taken in this action in accordance with 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 7. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be 

served on Defendants or Defendants’ counsel by mailing a true 

copy of the document to Defendants or their counsel. 

 8. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 

Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address 

by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice of 

Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a 

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of 

this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(b). 

 9. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable 

extensions will be granted. Any motion for an extension of time 

Case 4:13-cv-04635-CW Document 41 Filed 03/09/15 Page 8 of 9
9 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

must be filed no later than fourteen days prior to the deadline 

sought to be extended. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2015 

__________________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:13-cv-04635-CW Document 41 Filed 03/09/15 Page 9 of 9