Hollis v. Allison
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-04974
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Hollis v. Allison, Judge Davila let an Eighth Amendment prison-conditions claim proceed, dismissed other claims, and ordered service and later dispositive motions.
Ellis C. Hollis and the state prison and corrections officials named in the remaining Eighth Amendment claim are affected. Gavin Newsom was dismissed from the action, and the other deficient claims were dismissed; the remaining defendants must be served and address the surviving claim.
What happened
In Hollis v. Allison, Ellis C. Hollis, who is incarcerated, sued prison and California corrections officials under a federal civil-rights law. The court had previously found that his allegations could support a claim that officials were deliberately indifferent to unsafe conditions related to inmate transfers and COVID-19 at San Quentin State Prison.
Because Hollis did not amend other deficient claims or notify the court that he wanted to proceed only on the viable claim, the court dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim. The court also dismissed Gavin Newsom because the complaint did not adequately allege his involvement. The case will continue on the unsafe-conditions claim against the relevant defendants.
Judge Davila ordered service on the remaining defendants and directed them to file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion within 91 days. The order also set deadlines for Hollis’s response and the defendants’ reply and allowed discovery under the federal rules.
The detailed version
- Hollis v. Allison · No. 5:21-cv-04974
- Edward Davila
- Jan. 21, 2022
Background
Ellis C. Hollis filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state officials who violate federal rights. He sued officials and employees at San Quentin State Prison, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officials, and officials at another prison.
The court had previously screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary review of a prisoner’s claims against governmental entities or employees. In that earlier order, the court found that the complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim concerning unsafe conditions at San Quentin State Prison. The claim was based on allegations that inmates exposed to COVID-19 were not tested before transfer from Chino State Prison, were transported in conditions that did not follow recommended precautions, were exposed to the San Quentin population without additional safety measures, and were not properly quarantined. Hollis alleged that he contracted COVID-19 and suffered its effects within a month after the transfer.
The court had dismissed other claims and gave Hollis permission either to amend certain deficient claims or to proceed only on the cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. Hollis did not file an amended complaint or the alternative notice by the deadline.
Rulings
The court ordered that the case proceed solely on the cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. It dismissed the claims that had previously been found non-cognizable, including official-capacity damages claims barred by the Eleventh Amendment, a negligence claim concerning masks, social distancing, and a separate hot-water bib at the beginning of the pandemic, and a claim concerning the transfer of North Kern inmates.
The court dismissed with prejudice the claim concerning allegedly inhumane yard conditions caused by a lack of toilets. It also dismissed the inadequate medical and dental-care claim because Hollis did not amend it. The court dismissed Gavin Newsom from the action because the complaint’s allegation that he knew about the transfers and failed to act was conclusory and did not explain how he was involved in the transfer decision or otherwise involved in the relevant events.
The court directed that Kathleen Allison, Ralph Diaz, Ron Davis, Ron Broomfield, Dr. A. Pachynski, Dr. L. Escobell, R. Steven Tharratt, Clarence Cryer, Dean Borders, Dr. Joseph Bick, and Clark Kelso be served as specified in the order. It directed the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion addressing the cognizable claim within 91 days after the order was filed. It set deadlines for Hollis’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, stated that no hearing would be held unless later ordered, and permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Effect of the Order
The order did not end the entire case. It narrowed the action to the Eighth Amendment unsafe-conditions claim and set the case for service, discovery, and a later dispositive motion. The opinion does not decide whether Hollis will ultimately prevail on that remaining claim.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.