Demings v. Allison

Background

Kevin Demings, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had dismissed his original complaint with permission to amend, and he filed an amended complaint.

Demings’s amended complaint concerned conditions at San Quentin State Prison during the COVID-19 pandemic. He alleged that various prison officials and the federal receiver for prison medical care in California transferred more than 100 inmates from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin without proper COVID-19 testing and other safety precautions. He further alleged that officials failed to isolate incoming inmates or provide personal protective equipment and placed inmates in close living quarters without proper ventilation. According to the opinion, Demings experienced numerous severe COVID-19 symptoms and continues to suffer adverse effects.

Screening and claim

The court explained that federal law requires preliminary screening of prisoner complaints seeking relief from governmental entities or employees. At screening, the court must identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state law.

The court described the Eighth Amendment standard for prison conditions: the alleged deprivation must be objectively serious, and the official must have a sufficiently blameworthy state of mind. Applying the requirement that pro se pleadings be read liberally, the court stated that Demings’s allegations presented an Eighth Amendment claim against the defendants. The opinion also states that Demings voluntarily dismissed several claims and defendants from the original complaint; under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, those claims and defendants were no longer part of the action.

Order

The court ordered service of the amended complaint on the defendants. The United States Marshal was directed to serve Clark Kelso, identified as the federal receiver, and the remaining listed defendants were to be served electronically through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s service program. The listed defendants included Kathleen Allison, Ralph Diaz, Ron Davis, Dr. R. Steven Tharratt, Dr. Joseph Bick, Ron Broomfield, Dr. A. Pachynski, Clarence Cryer, Dr. L. Escobell, and Dean Borders.

The court directed the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion no later than 60 days after service, unless they informed the court that the case could not be resolved that way. Demings would have 30 days after service of such a motion to file an opposition, and any reply would be due 15 days after the opposition. The order also authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and required Demings to keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court orders. The opinion did not rule on the ultimate merits of the Eighth Amendment claim.