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, some of whom had COVID-19, from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison in May 2020. He alleged that defendants failed to take adequate precautions before, during, and after the transfer, including testing or screening prisoners at appropriate times, using distancing measures on transfer buses, and testing and isolating prisoners after arrival.

The complaint alleged that San Quentin 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 also alleged failures involving public-health recommendations, protective equipment, masks, prisoner transfers or releases, quarantine practices, and offers of free COVID-19 testing. He alleged that he became infected in June 2020.

Claims and Screening

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires a preliminary review of a prisoner’s action seeking relief from a governmental entity or its officer or employee. At screening, the court must identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.

The plaintiff alleged that 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 violated the Eighth Amendment by being deliberately indifferent to his medical and safety needs, including through supervisory liability. The complaint also asserted claims under California Civil Code section 52.1, known as the Bane Act, and for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff sought declaratory relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and costs.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the allegations about 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 at this stage is one that is adequately pleaded to continue; it is not a final determination that the plaintiff will prevail. The court applied the deliberate-indifference standard, under which a prison official must know of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregard that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to reduce it.

The court also found cognizable the plaintiff’s Bane Act claim. It explained that the statute protects against interference with rights secured by federal or state law when the interference is carried out through threats, intimidation, or coercion. Construing the complaint liberally, the court found that the allegations of reckless disregard for constitutional rights met the pleading requirements at this stage.

The court found cognizable the negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim as well. It explained that California does not recognize that claim as an independent tort; it may be pursued when the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, breached another legal duty, and thereby proximately caused emotional distress. The court concluded that the alleged prisoner-guard relationship created a duty of care and that the plaintiff alleged emotional distress arising from exposure to COVID-19.

The court determined that the plaintiff had not identified causes of action against the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or San Quentin State Prison.

Disposition and Case Management

The court dismissed the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and San Quentin State Prison. It ordered service to proceed against Diaz, the Estate of Tharratt, Davis, Broomfield, Cryer, Pachynski, Garrigan, Escobell, Farooq, and Torres through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program for prisoner civil-rights cases.

The court directed the department to report within 40 days which defendants would waive service and which would not. The clerk would then arrange service through the United States Marshals Service for defendants who did not waive service. The consolidated cases related to the prisoner-transfer litigation remain stayed except for service. The court also stated that filings by the plaintiff must be served on defendants or their counsel and that the plaintiff remains responsible for prosecuting the case and complying with court orders.