83 F.4th 754
9th Cir.2023Background
- In May 2020 California transferred 122 medically vulnerable inmates from the California Institution for Men (CIM) to San Quentin to protect them from a severe outbreak at CIM.
- Many transferred inmates were not recently tested or symptom-screened, buses exceeded COVID-capacity limits, and transferred inmates were housed and fed with the general San Quentin population.
- Marin County Public Health Officer and outside health experts recommended strict sequestration, masking, restricted staff movement, and other measures; prison officials did not follow those recommendations.
- A resulting outbreak at San Quentin infected over 2,000 inmates and killed more than 25 inmates and one correctional officer; Michael Hampton, a transferred inmate, died of COVID-19.
- Hampton’s wife sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Eighth Amendment) and state-law claims; defendants moved to dismiss asserting PREP Act immunity, qualified immunity, and various California statutory immunities.
- The district court denied immunity defenses; the Ninth Circuit (interlocutory) affirmed denial of federal immunities (PREP Act and qualified immunity) but dismissed the appeal as to state-law immunities for lack of interlocutory jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PREP Act bars plaintiff’s claims as relating to COVID-19 testing | Hampton’s death was not caused by administration/use of a covered countermeasure; claims challenge failures to test/screen and other operational decisions, not administration of tests | PREP Act covers claims “relating to” covered countermeasures (COVID tests), so PREP immunity applies | PREP Act does not bar claims that challenge non‑administration or failures to test; no causal link to any administered countermeasure; denial of PREP immunity was reviewed on interlocutory appeal and affirmed |
| Whether denial of PREP Act immunity is immediately appealable (collateral order) | Plaintiff: appeal should await final judgment | Defendants: PREP Act grants complete immunity from suit so denial is conclusive and collateral | Denial is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine (conclusive, separate from merits, effectively unreviewable later) |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the Eighth Amendment claim | Hampton alleges deliberate indifference to a known, substantial risk of serious harm from COVID-19 | Defendants claim their actions were reasonable given exigent circumstances and that no clearly established law put them on notice | Qualified immunity denied: complaint plausibly alleges Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and the right to be free from exposure to serious communicable disease was clearly established |
| Whether the court can immediately review defendants’ asserted California statutory immunities | Plaintiff: state immunities are defenses to liability not immunity from suit | Defendants: state immunities function as immunity from suit and are immediately appealable | Ninth Circuit lacks interlocutory jurisdiction over state-law immunities because California Supreme Court precedent treats those immunities as defenses to liability, not immunity from suit |
Key Cases Cited
- Polanco v. Diaz, 76 F.4th 918 (9th Cir. 2023) (addressing substantially similar facts and PREP Act / qualified immunity issues)
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (U.S. 2009) (explaining collateral order doctrine standards)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1949) (foundational collateral-order doctrine decision)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1985) (immunity-from-suit rationale; harms from erroneous denial are irreparable)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (standard for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference)
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1993) (Eighth Amendment protection against involuntary exposure to serious communicable disease)
- Dubin v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 1557 (U.S. 2023) (textual limits on the phrase "relate to")
- Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (articulating clearly established right contours for Eighth Amendment claims)