Lee v. Allison

Background

Wilbert H. Lee, identified as an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims against a person acting under state law for violating federal rights. The defendants included California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officials, a federal receiver, the Governor, California Correctional Health Care Services personnel, and prison officials at San Quentin State Prison and California Institute for Men. The court had granted Lee permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.

Lee alleged numerous problems involving San Quentin’s response to COVID-19, including the lack of testing, masks, social distancing, sanitation, and adequate quarantine procedures. He alleged that 121 inmates were transferred from California Institute for Men to San Quentin without immediate testing or quarantine, that more than 2,000 inmates and staff became infected, and that at least 28 people died. Lee also alleged that he contracted COVID-19 and had underlying medical conditions. His other allegations concerned the removal of toilets from the yard, lack of outdoor exercise, long waits for showers, and the interruption of medical and dental care.

Lee asserted claims under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments and referred to a state-created right to effective medical care. The court explained that an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim requires an objectively serious deprivation and a prison official’s sufficiently culpable state of mind. Deliberate indifference requires that the official know of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregard that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to address it.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that Lee had presented serious allegations that might state Eighth Amendment claims, but it dismissed the complaint with leave to amend for several reasons.

First, Lee could sue only for injuries he personally suffered, not for general concerns about prison conditions or injuries to other inmates. For example, he could pursue the alleged denial of medical or dental care only if he personally sought care, was denied care, and the denial amounted to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. He could challenge the transfer of COVID-positive inmates only if that transfer caused him a constitutional injury.

Second, many allegations were conclusory, lacked supporting facts, and did not identify what particular defendants did or failed to do. The court specifically stated that allegations about insufficient social distancing or hand sanitizer, without more, were insufficient to state a claim.

Third, the complaint appeared to violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2), which generally permits multiple defendants to be joined only when the claims arise from the same transaction or series of transactions and involve a common question of law or fact. The court concluded that the COVID-related allegations were not based on the same transaction or common questions as the allegations about toilet removal and lack of outdoor exercise. Lee was instructed to choose related claims for this case and bring claims arising from other incidents in a separate action.

Fourth, the court explained that § 1983 does not impose liability merely because a defendant employed or supervised an alleged wrongdoer. Lee therefore needed to provide more information showing how each defendant, including supervisory defendants, was directly involved in a constitutional violation and how that defendant’s conduct amounted to deliberate indifference.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It ordered Lee to file an amended complaint within 28 days of the order. The amended complaint had to use the case caption and number specified by the court and include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. It would replace the earlier complaint, so Lee had to include all claims and defendants he wished to pursue rather than incorporating the earlier complaint by reference. The order stated that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within the time allowed would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order on May 26, 2021.