Vargas v. State of California

Background

Jason M. Vargas, an inmate housed at Correctional Training Facility, filed this self-represented civil-rights action against former warden Craig Koenig, Captain D. Metcalf, Captain Enrique Galvan, and Chief Medical Executive S. Posson. Vargas alleged that officials deliberately exposed inmates to COVID-19, including through a July 20, 2020 raid and later decisions to house COVID-positive inmates with COVID-negative inmates. He alleged that he contracted COVID-19, continued to experience Long COVID symptoms, became more susceptible to Valley Fever, and later contracted Valley Fever.

The operative complaint asserted an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to inmate safety and state-law claims for battery, negligence, and negligent supervision. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Vargas had not exhausted his prison grievances, had not adequately alleged a causal connection between their conduct and his COVID-19 infection, and had not adequately pleaded or preserved his state-law claims.

Exhaustion of Prison Grievances

The court explained that the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to properly complete available administrative remedies before bringing federal claims about prison conditions. A grievance must comply with the prison system’s procedural requirements, including identifying involved staff members or describing them as required by the regulations.

The court held that Grievance No. 24762, which concerned Vargas’s request for parole because of his vulnerability to COVID-19, did not exhaust the claims in this case. Grievance No. HC 2100382, which concerned treatment for Valley Fever, also did not exhaust these claims.

The court presumed that Grievance No. 70624 was exhausted because Vargas alleged that prison officials failed to provide a final response within the required period. That grievance exhausted claims that Koenig, Metcalf, and Galvan caused Vargas to contract COVID-19 by moving inmate Kim into X-Wing while he was COVID-positive, moving inmate Garcia into X-Wing before his incubation period ended, and allowing COVID-positive inmates to use the same showers as COVID-negative inmates.

The court held that Grievance No. 70624 did not exhaust claims against Posson or claims that Koenig, Metcalf, and Galvan caused Vargas’s infection by authorizing the July 20 raid, allowing COVID-positive inmates to use the same phones and eating trays as COVID-negative inmates, or failing to quarantine COVID-positive inmates. The court granted the motion to dismiss those claims for failure to exhaust and stated that the dismissal was without prejudice to filing a new action after exhaustion.

Eighth Amendment Claims

For the claims that the court treated as exhausted, the defendants argued that Vargas had not adequately alleged that their actions actually and proximately caused his COVID-19 infection. The court agreed. It found it unclear when Kim and Garcia were moved into X-Wing and how much time passed between infected and uninfected inmates using the same showers. Because the complaint did not sufficiently connect those actions to Vargas’s infection in November 2020, the court granted the motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claims based on the X-Wing moves and shared showers for failure to state a claim.

The court dismissed those Eighth Amendment claims with leave to amend. If Vargas repleads them, the court directed him to explain how the challenged actions were a proximate cause of his COVID-19 infection. The court did not address the parties’ arguments about the July 20 raid in this part of its analysis.

State-Law Claims

The court denied as moot the motion to dismiss the state-law claims because it had dismissed all federal claims then remaining. The court allowed Vargas to replead the state-law claims if he filed a second amended complaint to address the federal claims’ deficiencies. It stated that it would screen any state-law claims at that time.

The court also explained that a complaint asserting state-law tort claims must affirmatively allege compliance with the California Government Claims Act or facts excusing compliance. The court found it unclear whether Vargas’s government claim raised the claims in this action and whether the claim and lawsuit were timely.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed without prejudice all claims against Posson and the specified unexhausted claims against Koenig, Metcalf, and Galvan. It denied dismissal for failure to exhaust as to the claims involving Kim, Garcia, and shared showers, but granted dismissal of those claims for failure to state an Eighth Amendment claim and granted leave to amend. It denied as moot the motion to dismiss the state-law claims and granted leave to replead them.

Vargas was ordered to file a second amended complaint within 28 days. The order states that failure to file one addressing the identified deficiencies could result in dismissal of the action without further notice. The order terminated the motion to dismiss at ECF No. 44.