IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES

Background

The plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action in state court. He alleged that defendants transferred more than 100 prisoners from the California Institution for Men (CIM) to San Quentin State Prison (SQSP) in May 2020, although some transferred prisoners were infected with COVID-19. He further alleged that defendants failed to test or screen prisoners at appropriate times, failed to maintain distancing on transfer buses, failed to test and isolate prisoners after arrival, failed to follow public-health recommendations, and failed to provide adequate masks and personal protective equipment.

The complaint alleged that SQSP went from having no COVID-19 cases to 499 cases over three weeks, later had more than 2,000 prisoner cases, and experienced 26 prisoner deaths by late July. The plaintiff alleged that defendants knew he had risk factors including asthma, post-traumatic stress disorder, age, and African American descent, and that he became infected with COVID-19 in June 2020.

The action was consolidated with other cases concerning the 2020 prisoner transfer. The individual case docket was closed, and the consolidated matter was stayed except for service of the complaint.

Claims and Screening

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires a preliminary review of prisoner lawsuits against governmental entities or officials. At this stage, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule that self-represented pleadings must be read liberally.

The plaintiff sued the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, SQSP, Ralph Diaz, the Estate of Robert S. Tharratt, Ronald Davis, Ronald Broomfield, Clarence Cryer, Alison Pachynski, Shannon Garrigan, Louie Escobell, Muhammad Farooq, Kirk Torres, and Does 1 through 20. The opinion states that the individual defendants were sued in their individual capacities.

Eighth Amendment claim

The court held that the allegations concerning the May 2020 transfer stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Diaz, the Estate of Tharratt, Davis, Broomfield, Cryer, Pachynski, Garrigan, Escobell, Farooq, and Torres. A cognizable claim is one that is sufficiently pleaded to proceed beyond the initial screening stage. The court described deliberate indifference as knowingly disregarding a substantial risk of serious harm by failing to take reasonable steps.

California Bane Act claim

The court held that the complaint also stated a cognizable claim under California Civil Code section 52.1, known as the Bane Act. The court explained that the Act addresses interference with rights protected by federal or state law when the interference involves threats, intimidation, or coercion. It concluded that, liberally construed, the allegations of reckless disregard for the plaintiff’s constitutional rights met the requirements for this claim.

Rehabilitation Act claim

The court held that the plaintiff stated a cognizable claim under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against the State of California, CDCR, and SQSP. The plaintiff alleged that he had asthma and PTSD, that these defendants received federal financial assistance, and that they failed to provide disability-related accommodations during the COVID-19 outbreak. The alleged accommodations included enhanced personal protective equipment, N-95 respirators, environmental changes to permit social distancing, enforcement of masking and distancing rules, and compliance with public-health guidance.

Negligent infliction of emotional distress

The court held that the plaintiff stated a cognizable state-law claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against Diaz, the Estate of Tharratt, Davis, Broomfield, Cryer, Pachynski, Garrigan, Escobell, Farooq, Torres, and Does 1 through 20. The court explained that California does not treat negligent infliction of emotional distress as an independent tort, but permits such a claim when a defendant breached another legal duty and that breach proximately caused emotional distress. The court concluded that the alleged prisoner-guard relationship and alleged exposure to COVID-19 supported the claim at the screening stage.

Disposition and service

The court did not dismiss the claims identified as cognizable. It ordered service on the State of California through the Office of the Attorney General and directed service on CDCR, SQSP, and the listed individual defendants through CDCR’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order required CDCR to report which defendants would waive service and established subsequent procedures for serving defendants who did not waive service.

The case remains stayed for all purposes other than service. The plaintiff was instructed to file future motions in the consolidated case docket while including his original case number. The court stated that the plaintiff would be granted permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees by separate order.