George v. Diaz

Background

Joseph Anthony George, a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint with permission to amend and had denied his requests for a temporary restraining order and appointed counsel.

The amended complaint concerned prison officials’ response to COVID-19. George alleged that COVID-19 was widespread in California prisons and that he had heart disease and other serious medical conditions. He was housed in the security housing unit and alleged that transferring him from a COVID-19-safe area to a hotspot could create an unreasonable risk of future harm. He said he had requested masks, that others wear masks, and that he not be transferred, but that his prison appeal was still pending. The amended complaint did not allege that officials had an actual plan to transfer him or identify specific actions or failures by individual defendants showing deliberate indifference.

Legal standard and analysis

Because George was a prisoner seeking relief from government officials, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

The court analyzed the claim under the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. To state a deliberate-indifference claim, George needed to allege both a sufficiently serious deprivation and that an official knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded it by failing to take reasonable steps to reduce the risk.

The court took judicial notice of the existence of COVID-19 response plans and guidance on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s website. The court specifically did not take judicial notice that those plans had been implemented, were sufficient, or would be effective. The court concluded that the amended complaint still failed to allege facts showing deliberate indifference. It did not allege a planned transfer, show that the prison system’s movement restrictions and safety measures reflected deliberate indifference, or identify particular wrongdoing by any defendant. The court stated that the existence of COVID-19 and George’s desire to avoid contracting it were not enough to state an Eighth Amendment claim.

Rulings

The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It did not grant further permission to amend because the court had already explained the problems with the claim and George had not corrected them in the amended complaint. The court denied George’s second requests for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and for appointment of counsel because the action was being dismissed and for the additional reasons stated in the earlier order. The clerk was directed to close the file.