Vines v. Allison

Background

Paris Donte Vines filed a First Amended Complaint against executives of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, officials at San Quentin State Prison and the California Institute for Men, and Clark Kelso, a federal receiver. He alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment arising from the prisons’ response to COVID-19.

Vines alleged that prison officials did not provide free COVID-19 testing and adequate personal protective equipment to all staff and inmates. He also alleged that, in May 2020, officials transferred inmates from the California Institute for Men to San Quentin without adequate testing, ignored warnings from local health officials, and did not retest or isolate the transferred inmates. He alleged that infected inmates were moved to San Quentin, that officials overloaded buses and disregarded social-distancing protocols, and that he developed COVID-19 symptoms and continued to experience adverse effects. He sought compensation and an injunction addressing his medical and dental concerns.

Screening standard

Because Vines sought relief from governmental officials while incarcerated, the court screened the amended 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 an immune defendant. For a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and conduct by a person acting under state law.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the allegations concerning the failure to provide COVID-19 tests and personal protective equipment in March 2020 did not state an Eighth Amendment claim. The court explained that negligence or gross negligence is not enough in this setting and that an accident or evaluative mistake does not establish the required mental state. Because Vines alleged that San Quentin was infection-free before the May 2020 transfer, and alleged that masks were distributed in April 2020, the court concluded that officials lacked the required mental state when they failed to distribute materials in March, before COVID-19 arrived at San Quentin.

The court separately addressed Vines’s request for an injunction requiring attention to his medical and dental concerns. It found that Vines did not connect those concerns to the COVID-19 allegations, did not allege that officials failed to provide medical care, and did not identify defendants directly involved in his care. The court ruled that these unrelated claims could not be joined in this lawsuit. It dismissed the request for injunctive relief 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 about the May 2020 transfer sufficient, when read liberally, to state an Eighth Amendment claim against the defendants. The court therefore ordered service on Kathleen Allison, Ralph Diaz, Ron Davis, Dr. R. Steven Tharratt, Dr. Joseph Bick, Ron Broomfield, Dr. A. Pachynski, Clarence Cryer, Dean Borders, Dr. L. Escobell, and Clark Kelso.

Disposition and case schedule

The court directed the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion by December 31, 2021, or to notify the court if summary judgment could not resolve the case. It set February 11, 2022, for Vines’s opposition and March 2, 2022, for defendants’ reply. The court also authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and provided Vines with notices concerning summary judgment and his obligations to serve filings, prosecute the case, and keep the court informed of address changes.

This order screened the complaint and identified a claim that could proceed; it did not decide whether Vines would ultimately prevail on that claim.