Cooper v. Allison et a.

Background

Ken Cooper filed a self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials and employees at San Quentin State Prison, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officials, and officials at another prison. The court treated his amended complaint as the operative complaint. The court stated that it would screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires review of a prisoner’s claims against governmental entities and officials and dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Cooper challenged officials’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic. His allegations included that masks were not provided to San Quentin prisoners until late April 2020; that potentially vulnerable and exposed prisoners were transferred from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin without all prisoners being retested; that transportation did not follow recommended distancing practices; that transferred prisoners were exposed to the San Quentin population without additional safety measures; and that infected prisoners were not properly quarantined. Cooper alleged that he tested positive for COVID-19 on July 7, 2020, after sharing a cell with a cellmate who had tested positive. He also sought medical and dental care and damages.

Court’s analysis

For an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim, the court explained that the alleged deprivation must be objectively serious and that the official must know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm. The court also explained that § 1983 liability depends on each official’s own conduct; a supervisor is not automatically liable for an employee’s actions.

The court concluded that the allegations about the transfer and the resulting conditions stated an Eighth Amendment claim concerning unsafe conditions at San Quentin. The claim was based on allegations that potentially infected prisoners were not tested before transfer, were transported without recommended distancing, were exposed to the San Quentin population without additional safety protocols, and were not properly quarantined, resulting in Cooper’s infection and its effects.

The court found that the allegations about failing to provide masks at the start of the pandemic amounted to negligence, which is not actionable under § 1983 in the prison context. It also found that the allegations about a planned transfer from North Kern State Prison did not state a claim because Cooper did not allege that the transfer occurred or explain how it violated his constitutional rights. The court said Cooper had not connected his requests for dental and optometry care to the COVID-19 claim and would need to provide additional facts to pursue those allegations.

Disposition

The court ordered that Cooper’s claim for damages based on defendants’ actions in their official capacities was dismissed as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. His damages claim against each defendant in an individual capacity may proceed. The negligence claim concerning the failure to provide masks at the start of the pandemic was dismissed for failure to state a claim.

The claim for inadequate dental and optometric care was dismissed with leave to amend. Cooper was given 28 days from the filing of the order to file a second amended complaint correcting the identified deficiencies. Alternatively, he could notify the court that he wished to proceed solely on the Eighth Amendment unsafe-conditions claim. The order states that if he did not respond as directed, the case would proceed on the cognizable unsafe-conditions claim and the other claims would be dismissed.