Feise v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Background

Ronald Lee Feise filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law, alleging that he contracted COVID-19 twice while incarcerated in California state prisons. He identified the dates as December 20, 2020, and January 21, 2022, and named more than 15 defendants.

The court reviewed the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That review requires the court to dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from a defendant who is legally immune from that relief. The court also noted that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read liberally, but they still must contain enough factual matter to show a plausible claim.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court held that the complaint did not state a claim because it alleged only that Feise contracted COVID-19 and did not identify specific facts showing what any particular defendant did or failed to do. The court explained that a civil-rights claim requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state authority, and that responsibility must be tied individually to each defendant.

The court also ruled that any claim concerning the 2022 infection at Mule Creek State Prison could not be brought in the Northern District of California because the alleged events occurred in the Eastern District of California. The court stated that the claim would need to be raised in that district.

As to the 2020 infection, Feise did not state where it occurred. The court said that claim might proceed in the Northern District if the event occurred there, but was likely untimely. The court explained that California generally provides a two-year limitations period for these claims and that a prisoner serving less than a life term may receive two additional years of tolling. Even with that additional time, the court said a 2020 claim filed in late 2025 would be beyond the four-year period.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. The order required Feise to file a proper first amended complaint by December 8, 2025, using the court's form and including all claims and defendants he wished to pursue. The order stated that the amended complaint would replace the earlier complaint and that failing to file a proper amended complaint by the deadline might result in dismissal of the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide whether Feise could ultimately prove a constitutional violation.