Carter v. Allison

Background

Charles Carter, who was incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute permits a claim against a person acting under state law for violating rights protected by the Constitution or federal law. Carter alleged constitutional violations by employees at San Quentin, the California Institute for Men, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the federal receiver for prison medical care in California.

Carter’s complaint concerned prison conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. He alleged that more than 100 inmates were transferred from the California Institute for Men to San Quentin without proper COVID-19 testing and other safety precautions. He further alleged that the incoming inmates were not isolated, that personal protective equipment was not provided, and that the incoming inmates were placed with San Quentin inmates in close living quarters without proper ventilation.

Carter alleged that he later experienced body aches, weakness, headaches, nausea, loss of smell and taste, diarrhea, and vomiting. He tested positive for COVID-19 on June 29, 2020. He also alleged continuing effects, including high blood pressure, memory loss, and fatigue.

Initial screening

Because Carter was a prisoner seeking relief from government employees and entities, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from a defendant who is legally immune from that relief. The court also stated that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read liberally, while still containing enough facts to make a claim plausible.

For an Eighth Amendment prison-conditions claim, the alleged deprivation must be objectively serious, and the official must have acted with deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s health or safety. The court also explained that a defendant must have personally caused, participated in, or had a sufficient causal connection to the alleged constitutional violation; a person cannot be held liable merely for supervising someone else.

Ruling and case management

The court held that, when liberally construed, Carter’s allegations appeared to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against all defendants. “Cognizable” here means the claim may proceed because it is legally sufficient at the initial-screening stage; the ruling did not determine the ultimate merits of the claim.

The court ordered service on the defendants. Clark Kelso, identified as the federal receiver, was to be served through the United States Marshal, while the remaining defendants were to be served electronically through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order also required defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 60 days after service, unless they informed the court that the case could not be resolved that way.

The order set additional deadlines for Carter’s opposition and any reply, allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and reminded Carter that he was responsible for prosecuting the case and keeping the court informed of address changes. The court stated that failure to comply with court orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Carter’s motion to proceed without paying filing fees had been granted in a separate order.