Cooper v. Allison et a.

Background

Ken Cooper filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials and staff at San Quentin State Prison. Section 1983 allows a person to seek relief for a violation of federal rights by someone acting under state authority. The court stated that its separate order would address Cooper’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Cooper described numerous conditions and events connected to the prison’s response to COVID-19. He alleged, among other things, that the prison initially lacked masks, did not adequately maintain social distancing or control crowding, exposed prisoners to people in medical quarantine, had inadequate ventilation, and lacked a separate hot-water hose connection for cleaning the shower area. He alleged that 121 prisoners were transferred from Chino State Prison to San Quentin without COVID-19 testing before integration with the prison population, followed by widespread infections and deaths.

Cooper alleged that his cellmate tested positive for COVID-19 on June 25, 2020, but that he remained housed in the same cell after telling Lt. Teixera about his health risks. Cooper later tested positive and reported several symptoms. He also alleged limited shower access, no exercise program for several months, overcrowded and maskless conditions, delayed dental and optometry care, and repeated power shutoffs. He claimed the power shutoffs were retaliation for his grievance-related speech.

Screening and claims

Because Cooper was a prisoner suing government officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires the court to identify claims that are legally insufficient or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must read complaints filed without a lawyer liberally.

The court explained the standards for an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim. The alleged deprivation must be objectively serious, and the defendant must have acted with deliberate indifference—meaning the defendant knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and failed to take reasonable steps to address it. The court also discussed deliberate indifference to medical needs, exercise, retaliation for protected speech, and individual rather than automatic supervisory liability under § 1983.

The court found that the complaint did not adequately identify the conduct of each of the 19 defendants. It specifically noted that Cooper named Director Kathleen Allison, Secretary Ralph Diaz, and Governor Gavin Newsom without making factual allegations against them. The court also found deficiencies in the allegations concerning exercise, showers, ventilation, the shower cleaning connection, dental and optometry care, and supervisory liability. Regarding masks, the court said that Cooper alleged he complained to Dr. Pachynski and Warden R. Broomfield and that masks were then provided and required, which did not show deliberate indifference on those allegations.

The court found Cooper’s retaliation claim against Officer Dearmore conclusory because he did not explain what complaint he filed, when he filed it, who knew about it, or how the power shutoffs were intended to discourage his First Amendment activity.

Disposition

The court held that Cooper stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim based on being kept in the same cell as a cellmate who had tested positive for COVID-19 after Cooper informed Lt. Teixera that he was high risk. The court said Teixera’s alleged statement, if true, indicated knowledge of an excessive health risk and failure to take reasonable steps to reduce it. Cooper could proceed on that claim alone against Lt. Teixera if he chose.

The court ordered that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Within 28 days of the order, Cooper could file an amended complaint using the court’s form, with the required caption, case number, and “AMENDED COMPLAINT” marking. The court explained that an amended complaint would replace the original, and claims or defendants not included in it would no longer be part of the action.

Alternatively, Cooper could file notice that he wished to proceed solely on the Eighth Amendment claim against Lt. Teixera and remove the other claims and defendants. If he did not respond as ordered, the case would proceed solely on that claim, and the other claims and defendants would be stricken without further notice. The order did not make a final merits determination on the surviving claim.