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 infected with COVID-19, from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison in May 2020. He alleged that defendants failed to test or screen prisoners appropriately, maintain distancing on transfer buses, test and isolate prisoners after arrival, provide sufficient masks and personal protective equipment, follow public-health recommendations, and accept offers of free testing.

The plaintiff alleged that San Quentin went from having no COVID-19 cases to 499 cases within three weeks, later had more than 2,000 prisoner cases, and had 26 prisoner deaths by late July. He also alleged that he tested positive for COVID-19 on June 29, 2020.

The case was consolidated with other cases concerning the 2020 prisoner transfer. The individual case docket was closed, and the case was stayed for all purposes other than service.

Screening Standard

Because the plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief from governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court was required to identify claims that could proceed or dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state law.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court concluded that the allegations stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Ralph Diaz, the Estate of Robert S. Tharratt, Ronald Davis, Ronald Broomfield, Clarence Cryer, Alison Pachynski, Shannon Garrigan, Louie Escobell, Muhammad Farooq, and Kirk Torres. The claim alleged deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s health and safety needs, meaning that officials knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and failed to take reasonable steps to address it.

The court also concluded that the plaintiff stated a claim under California Civil Code section 52.1, known as the Bane Act. The court found that the allegations, liberally construed, supported an inference that defendants acted with reckless disregard for the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

The court further concluded that the plaintiff stated a state-law claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Although California law does not recognize that claim as an independent tort, the court explained that it may be available when a defendant breaches another legal duty owed to the plaintiff and that breach proximately causes emotional distress. The court found that the plaintiff alleged defendants breached their duty to him as a prisoner by exposing him to COVID-19.

Dismissed Claims and Defendants

The complaint attached or incorporated a complaint filed by another prisoner, James Smith. The court would not treat allegations about Smith’s asthma, post-traumatic stress disorder, age, or race as allegations about this plaintiff. Because the plaintiff did not provide information about his own disabilities, the court held that he had not stated a Rehabilitation Act claim against the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or San Quentin State Prison.

The court dismissed the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and San Quentin State Prison. It allowed the plaintiff 28 days to file an amended complaint describing his own disabilities if he wished to pursue a Rehabilitation Act claim.

Order

The court ordered service under the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order directed the clerk to serve the operative complaint, the order, a service-waiver form, and a summons on the department for processing. The case will remain stayed for all purposes other than service.

Judge Edward J. Davila also directed the plaintiff to follow filing, service, address-update, and case-management requirements, and warned that failure to prosecute could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).