Lopez v. Allison

Background

Alex Lopez, identified as a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials. He alleged that officials were involved in transferring more than 100 prisoners, including some who were 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 precautions before, during, and after the transfer. The alleged failures included not testing the transferring prisoners or screening them for symptoms at the appropriate time, not implementing distancing measures on the buses, and not testing and isolating the transferred prisoners when they arrived. 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 he did not identify when he was diagnosed and that an attached positive test belonged to another prisoner.

Screening and claim

Because Lopez sought relief from governmental officials, the court conducted the preliminary prisoner-case screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court stated that it must read filings by people without lawyers liberally.

The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by someone acting under state authority. After construing Lopez’s allegations liberally, the court concluded that they stated a cognizable claim based on the alleged failure to protect prisoners from the risks associated with the transfer and COVID-19 exposure. The provided opinion text ends immediately after the phrase “deliberate,” so it does not fully show the court’s complete description of that claim.

Order

The court ordered the clerk to serve the complaint, order, summons, and service-waiver materials on the defendants through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program or, when necessary, through the United States Marshals Service. The order lists Federal Receiver J. Clark Kelso, Warden Ron Broomfield, Chief Medical Officer A. Pachynski, Clarence Cryer, Kathleen Allison, Ralph Diaz, Ron Davis, Steven Tharratt, Joseph Bick, Warden Dean Borders, and Chief Medical Officer L. Escobell for service at the locations or through the procedures stated in the order.

The defendants were ordered to file answers under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The remaining defendants were also directed to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion no later than 91 days after the order was filed, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. The order set deadlines for Lopez’s opposition and the defendants’ reply and required the defendants to provide the required warning about opposing summary judgment.

The court separately granted Lopez leave to proceed without paying the filing fee. It denied his motion for appointment of counsel, stating 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. The order also stated that Lopez must serve his court communications on the defendants, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders; failure to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Disposition and significance

This was a screening and case-management order, not a final decision on whether the alleged constitutional violation occurred. The court ordered service because it found a claim that could proceed, and it denied the motion for appointment of counsel. The opinion text provided does not state a final merits judgment.