Rivas v. Koenig

Background

Daniel Mendoza Rivas, an inmate housed at Folsom State Prison, filed a civil-rights action concerning events at Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California. He alleged that Craig Koenig, identified as the facility’s warden from 2020 to 2021, and L. Martinez, identified as warden from 2021 to the present, failed to enforce COVID-19 safety protocols from 2020 through 2022. The alleged failures included not enforcing masking and six-foot distancing requirements. Rivas alleged that he tested positive for COVID-19 in December 2020 and suffered health complications. He sought immediate release, a medical examination, and payment of mental-health and medical expenses.

The court had previously found that, liberally read, the complaint stated a legally recognizable Eighth Amendment claim. The complaint included Grievance No. 69229, submitted on December 20, 2020, concerning the facility’s handling of the COVID-19 outbreak and Rivas’s safety concerns.

Defendants’ Arguments

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint contains enough factual allegations to state a legally plausible claim. They argued that Rivas failed to exhaust the available prison grievance process; that his claims improperly depended only on supervisory liability; and that qualified immunity protected the defendants because no clearly established law supposedly made a warden liable for an infected staff member’s conduct during the pandemic.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to complete available administrative remedies before bringing a federal action about prison conditions. The court explained that failure to exhaust is usually raised through summary judgment, but may be raised in a dismissal motion when the failure is clear from the complaint.

The court dismissed the claims against Martinez and the Eighth Amendment claims concerning actions after December 20, 2020, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The grievance was filed on December 20, 2020, so it could not exhaust claims about later events, including the January 2022 outbreak. The court also found that the grievance did not exhaust claims concerning Martinez because it did not address policies or management while Martinez was warden. The dismissal was without prejudice to filing a new action after satisfying the exhaustion requirement for those claims.

The court held that the grievance did exhaust the claims against Koenig concerning management of the COVID-19 outbreak before December 20, 2020. Although the grievance did not name Koenig, the court stated that prison officials addressed the grievance’s substance at all available levels, and the grievance put officials on notice of the alleged failure to manage the outbreak. The opinion noted in a footnote that the exhibits showed only a first-level decision and that it was unclear whether the Office of Appeals issued a decision, but the defendants did not make that argument.

Supervisory Liability

The court denied the motion to dismiss based on supervisory liability. Although a person generally is not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 merely because that person supervises someone who committed a violation, a supervisor may be liable for knowing about constitutional violations and failing to prevent them, or for the supervisor’s own culpable action or inaction in training, supervising, or controlling subordinates.

The court found that the complaint alleged Koenig knew that COVID-19 protocols were necessary, that staff regularly failed to follow them, and that COVID-19 posed a serious risk to inmates’ health and safety. Liberally construed, those allegations stated a claim against Koenig under Section 1983.

Qualified Immunity

The court also denied the motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity can protect officials from civil liability unless their conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right that a reasonable official would have understood.

The court concluded that the defendants defined the relevant right too narrowly. Relying in part on a 2023 Ninth Circuit decision, the court stated that correctional officials were clearly required in 2020 to reasonably protect inmates from exposure to serious diseases. The court therefore held that qualified immunity was not appropriate at the motion-to-dismiss stage for the allegation that Koenig failed to ensure compliance with the facility’s COVID-19 protocols and thereby exposed Rivas to a serious communicable disease.

Disposition and Next Steps

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed the claims against Martinez and the Eighth Amendment claims concerning actions after December 20, 2020, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and denied the remainder of the motion. The court ordered a briefing schedule for a future motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion and stated that no hearing would be held on that motion.