Moralez v. Davis

Background

Rudolph H. Moralez, a state prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state law for violations of federal rights. He sued Warden Ron Davis and several prison officers.

Moralez alleged various problems with prison conditions during the pandemic. His allegations included inadequate medical care, failures to keep medical records, poor staff training and supervision, lack of a “quality control process,” and a failure to change or cancel population-reduction measures. He also referred to the Americans with Disabilities Act and alleged that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation failed to provide facemasks, resulting in his contracting the coronavirus. He sought damages.

Screening and Earlier Related Proceeding

Because Moralez sought relief from governmental officers, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening process requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.

The court described an earlier related proceeding involving the same defendants and allegations that masks were not distributed and that Moralez contracted the virus. In that earlier proceeding, the court twice dismissed the complaint while allowing Moralez to amend. The court first found that the allegations did not adequately support an Americans with Disabilities Act claim and allowed an attempt to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim. After Moralez amended, the court dismissed the amended complaint again with leave to amend because he had not followed the instructions to identify specific people and events and explain how each person violated his rights.

Ruling

The court explained that duplicative or repetitive litigation of essentially identical claims may be dismissed as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. It found that this case was duplicative because it arose from the same basic set of facts as the earlier related proceeding: the prison’s alleged response to the pandemic and the resulting injuries. The court also found that the defendants in the two cases were parties or legally related parties.

The complaint was DISMISSED as duplicative. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the file. The opinion does not state that the court decided the merits of Moralez’s underlying prison-condition claims.