Lee v. Allison

Background

Wilbert H. Lee, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed his amended complaint under the federal statute requiring early screening of a prisoner's claims against government entities or employees.

Lee alleged that defendants were involved in transferring more than 100 inmates from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin in May 2020, including some inmates infected with COVID-19. He alleged that officials failed to take adequate precautions before, during, and after the transfer. The alleged failures included not testing or properly screening prisoners, not maintaining distance on transfer buses, and not testing and isolating prisoners when they arrived. Lee also alleged that San Quentin had poor ventilation, crowded living quarters, and inadequate sanitation.

Lee alleged that the transfer and related failures caused an outbreak at San Quentin. He alleged that he contracted COVID-19 on June 29, 2020, and continued to experience adverse effects. He asserted that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment and sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and costs.

Screening and rulings

Under the prisoner-screening statute, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court noted that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state law.

The court dismissed Lee's claims for damages based on defendants' actions in their official capacities because the Eleventh Amendment bars such monetary claims against state officials in their official capacities. The court separately dismissed defendant Steven Tharratt. It took judicial notice of a filing and obituary indicating that, to the Attorney General's knowledge, Tharratt died on August 20, 2020. Because his death preceded the filing of the action, the court stated that a claim would have to be made against his estate under specified California probate procedures. The court said Lee could request permission to amend the complaint to add the estate if he completed those requirements.

Service and case management

The court ordered service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's electronic-service program on Allison, Diaz, Davis, Ron Broomfield, Pachynski, Escobell, Clarence Cryer, Dean Borders, and Joseph Bick. It ordered separate electronic service on Clark Kelso and his attorney. The order set procedures and deadlines for waiving service or arranging service through the United States Marshals Service.

The court also stated that it would issue a scheduling order for summary-judgment or other dispositive-motion briefing after common issues were resolved in a related multidistrict matter. The order required Lee to serve copies of his court communications on defense counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, comply with deadlines, and prosecute the case.

Disposition

The court dismissed defendant Tharratt and dismissed the amended complaint's claims for damages based on defendants' official-capacity actions. It ordered service on the other specified defendants. The order did not finally decide whether those remaining defendants violated the Eighth Amendment.