Lopez v. Allison
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-04976
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Lopez v. Allison, Judge Davila ordered service of Alex Lopez’s prison civil-rights claims but denied his motion for appointed counsel.
Alex Lopez’s civil-rights case was allowed to proceed past preliminary screening, and the listed prison officials and other defendants were directed to receive service. Lopez’s request for appointed counsel was denied.
What happened
In Lopez v. Allison, Alex Lopez, a California prisoner representing himself, alleged that prison officials exposed transferred prisoners to COVID-19 by failing to use adequate testing, screening, distancing, and isolation precautions. He said he developed COVID-19 symptoms and continuing health effects.
The court found that Lopez’s allegations stated a legally valid claim that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his health and ordered the complaint served on the defendants. The order also set deadlines for answers and possible motions seeking to end the case, and allowed discovery under the federal rules.
Judge Edward Davila denied Lopez’s request for appointed counsel, stating that civil litigants generally have no right to counsel and that Lopez could litigate his claims himself. The case was not dismissed at this stage.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. Allison · No. 5:21-cv-04976
- Edward Davila
- Oct. 14, 2021
Background
Alex Lopez, a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that prison officials participated in transferring more than 100 prisoners, some infected with COVID-19, from the California Institute for Men to San Quentin State Prison in May 2020.
Lopez alleged that officials failed to take adequate safety measures before, during, and after the transfer. The alleged failures included not testing or timely screening the transferring prisoners, not using distancing measures on transfer buses, and not testing and isolating the transferred prisoners after their arrival. Lopez alleged that he ultimately experienced numerous COVID-19 symptoms, including memory loss, high blood pressure, dizziness, body aches, weakness, headaches, nausea, loss of smell or taste, diarrhea, and vomiting. He also alleged continuing adverse effects. The opinion states that Lopez did not identify the date of his diagnosis and attached another prisoner’s positive test results to the complaint.
Screening and service
Because Lopez sought relief from governmental officials, the court conducted the preliminary screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court was required to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that filings by people without lawyers must be read liberally.
The court concluded that, when read liberally, Lopez’s allegations stated a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference. Deliberate indifference is a constitutional claim based on an official’s allegedly inadequate response to a serious risk to a prisoner’s health or safety. The court therefore ordered the complaint served on the defendants rather than dismissing the case at screening.
The service instructions covered Federal Receiver J. Clark Kelso; Warden Ron Broomfield; Chief Medical Officer A. Pachynski; San Quentin Healthcare Chief Executive Director Clarence Cryer; Kathleen Allison; Ralph Diaz; Ron Davis; Steven Tharratt; Joseph Bick; Warden Dean Borders; and Chief Medical Officer L. Escobell. The order directed service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program when applicable, with United States Marshals Service forms to be prepared for defendants who did not waive service.
Case-management instructions
The defendants were directed to file an answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The remaining defendants were directed to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion no later than 91 days after the order was filed, or to inform the court if they believed summary judgment could not resolve the case. Lopez’s opposition would be due 28 days after service of such a motion, and any reply would be due 14 days later. The order also stated that discovery could proceed under the federal rules.
Motion for appointed counsel
The court denied Lopez’s motion for appointment of counsel. It stated that there is no right to appointed counsel in a civil case and that Lopez was able to litigate his claims adequately on his own.
Disposition
The complaint was ordered served, and the motion for appointment of counsel was denied. The opinion does not resolve the ultimate merits of Lopez’s deliberate-indifference claim.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.