IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES

Background

The plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action concerning the May 2020 transfer of more than 100 prisoners from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison. The plaintiff alleged that some transferred prisoners had COVID-19 and that officials failed to take adequate safety precautions before, during, and after the transfer. The alleged failures included not testing or screening prisoners at appropriate times, not using distancing measures on transfer buses, not testing and isolating prisoners after arrival, not following public-health recommendations, lacking masks and personal protective equipment, and refusing offers of free COVID-19 testing.

The plaintiff alleged that he became infected with COVID-19 in May or June 2020. He sued the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, San Quentin State Prison, and individual prison and medical officials. The opinion states that the individual defendants were sued in their individual capacities. The case is part of a consolidated group of cases concerning the 2020 transfer.

Screening standard

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary review of a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from governmental entities or officials. At screening, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek relief from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule that a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state authority.

Claims and analysis

The court found that the allegations about the May 2020 transfer stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims 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 claims alleged deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s health and safety needs.

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

The court found a cognizable claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. It explained that California law allows such a claim when a defendant owes the plaintiff a duty, breaches another legal duty, and proximately causes emotional distress. The court relied on the special relationship and duty of care between prison officials and prisoners, as alleged in the complaint.

The court dismissed the Rehabilitation Act claim against the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and San Quentin State Prison. The plaintiff alleged that his disability was based on being African American and of advanced age, but the court stated that neither race nor age is a disability under the Rehabilitation Act.

Disposition and service

The court dismissed the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and San Quentin State Prison. It stated that the plaintiff had cognizable Eighth Amendment, California Civil Code section 52.1, and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims against the listed individual defendants.

The court ordered service on those individual defendants through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program, with service by the United States Marshals Service for any defendant who did not waive service. The case will remain stayed for all purposes other than service. The individual docket, No. 24-cv-00490-EJD, was closed, and any future motions by the plaintiff must be filed in the consolidated case under No. 5:20-cv-06326-EJD while identifying the original case number.