Rivas v. Koenig

Background

Daniel Mendoza Rivas brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Craig Koenig, alleging that Koenig was deliberately indifferent to Rivas’s safety and serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. At the relevant time, Rivas was housed at the Correctional Training Facility, where Koenig was warden. Rivas alleged that Koenig failed to enforce COVID-19 protocols, including masking and social-distancing requirements.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the facility announced COVID-19 safety measures that included masking, social distancing, sanitizing surfaces, and isolating or quarantining infected inmates. Rivas alleged that correctional staff frequently failed to wear masks and submitted photographs that he said showed unmasked or improperly masked staff. He also said he warned Koenig through letters and attempted to speak with him in the prison yard.

In December 2020, Rivas and his cellmate were moved to a cell. After the cellmate tested positive for COVID-19 on December 20, the cellmate was ordered to move to an isolation cell but was not moved for about six hours. Rivas’s COVID-19 tests on the dates described in the opinion were negative. Rivas claimed that a December 17 test was improperly administered and that he had COVID-19 symptoms. He later attributed breathing problems to long COVID; one doctor diagnosed asthma, while another doctor stated that he did not have asthma.

The parties’ positions

Koenig moved for summary judgment, arguing that Rivas could not show that Koenig caused him to contract COVID-19, that Koenig responded reasonably to the risk, and that Koenig was not directly involved in inmate cell assignments or aware of the delay in separating Rivas from his cellmate. Koenig also stated that he disciplined staff when he learned of protocol violations and that he toured the facility with medical personnel and yard supervisors.

Rivas argued that staff did not follow masking requirements, that his photographs supported his account, and that Koenig failed to discipline or investigate staff. He contended that Koenig was responsible for prison operations and oversight and should be liable for the staff’s conduct. He also argued that Koenig should have acted more quickly after the cellmate tested positive.

Court’s analysis

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to Rivas but did not weigh credibility disputes.

For an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim, a prisoner must show an objectively serious risk and that the official actually knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to health or safety. The court presumed, for purposes of the motion, that Rivas’s photographs showed inmates observing staff who were improperly masked or unmasked. But the court found no evidence that Koenig regularly observed those violations, knew about violations occurring when he was absent, or failed to discipline staff after learning of violations.

The court rejected Rivas’s theory that Koenig could be liable simply because he supervised the staff or had overall responsibility for the facility. Section 1983 does not impose liability merely because one person supervises an employee who allegedly violated a plaintiff’s rights. Rivas needed evidence that Koenig knew staff were not complying with masking rules, knew the violations created a substantial risk of serious harm, and failed to take reasonable steps to address them. The court found that Rivas had not provided such evidence.

The court reached the same conclusion regarding the delay in separating Rivas from his cellmate. It found no evidence that Koenig participated in cell-assignment decisions after a positive test or knew that the cellmate had tested positive and that Rivas remained in the cell for six hours.

Qualified immunity

Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from being required to stand trial for conduct within their official duties unless the conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. Because the court found no constitutional violation, it stated that it did not need to conduct any further qualified-immunity analysis.

Disposition

The court granted Koenig’s motion for summary judgment. Judgment was entered in Koenig’s favor and against Rivas, and the clerk was directed to close the case.