Delgadillo Lopez v. Allison

Background

Alejandro Delgadillo Lopez filed a first amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by persons acting under state authority. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The opinion says he alleged that officials at San Quentin State Prison and California Institute for Men, executives at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and federal receiver Clark Kelso were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Delgadillo Lopez alleged that, in March 2020, officials at San Quentin failed to provide free COVID-19 tests and adequate personal protective equipment to staff and prisoners. He also alleged that, in May 2020, prisoners were transferred from California Institute for Men to San Quentin without adequate testing; that officials ignored warnings about the transfer; that officials did not retest or isolate the transferred prisoners; and that he developed continuing COVID-19 symptoms afterward. He sought compensation and an injunction requiring attention to his medical and dental concerns.

Screening analysis

The court concluded that the March 2020 allegations concerning testing and protective equipment failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim. It explained that negligence, gross negligence, accidents, and evaluative mistakes do not establish the required mental state for deliberate indifference. The court relied in part on Delgadillo Lopez’s allegation that San Quentin was infection-free before the transfer and reasoned that officials could not have acted with the required disregard by failing to distribute materials to contain an outbreak that did not yet exist.

The court separately determined that the request for an injunction concerning medical and dental care was unrelated to the COVID-19 transfer allegations. It stated that Delgadillo Lopez did not connect his need for dental care to the COVID-19 events, did not allege that prison officials failed to provide medical care, and did not name defendants directly involved in that care. The court dismissed that request without leave to amend, but without prejudice to filing a separate lawsuit challenging a failure to provide medical or dental care.

The court found the allegations concerning the transfer sufficient, when liberally construed, to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. Those allegations included that the federal receiver ordered the transfer, the receiver and California corrections executives pressured officials to complete it quickly, officials approved transfers involving prisoners with outdated or nonexistent COVID-19 tests, buses were overloaded and social-distancing rules were ignored, and San Quentin officials did not retest or isolate transferred prisoners despite warnings. The court ordered defendants to respond to this claim.

Orders and disposition

The court ordered service of the first amended complaint on the defendants through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program. It directed defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claim by September 3, 2021, and set deadlines for opposition and reply papers. The court also allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and gave instructions concerning service, extensions, communications, and the plaintiff’s responsibilities in responding to a possible summary-judgment motion.

The clerk was directed to terminate J. Arnold, M. Bloise, B. Maub, B. Dutton, K. France, T. R. Teixeira, and Governor Gavin Newsom because they were not named in the first amended complaint. The order states that all claims against those individuals were dismissed. The court did not enter a final merits judgment on the transfer-related Eighth Amendment claim; instead, it allowed that claim to proceed to the next stage.