Bats v. Martinez

Background

Robert Bobbie Bats, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility, filed a civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The opinion also states that Bats had separately been granted permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Bats alleged that Correctional Training Facility warden L. Martinez and captain T. Mak failed to follow or enforce COVID-19 safety protocols. The alleged failures included not cleaning and sanitizing his housing unit during certain program hours, not placing him in a single cell, allowing staff to remove masks during cell searches, not requiring gloves to be changed between cell searches, and allowing staff who worked with COVID-positive inmates to work on yards housing inmates who did not have COVID-19. Bats alleged that these actions and inactions caused him to contract COVID-19.

Screening ruling

The court explained that a prisoner complaint must be screened for frivolous claims, claims that do not adequately state a legal claim, and claims seeking money from an immune defendant. It also explained that a Section 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state authority.

Reading Bats’s complaint broadly, the court found a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to his safety and serious medical needs. Deliberate indifference means that a prison official knew about and disregarded an excessive risk to an inmate’s health or safety by failing to take reasonable steps to reduce the risk. The court connected this type of claim to the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

What the order requires

The court ordered that L. Martinez and T. Mak be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service process, with United States Marshal service to be used for defendants who do not waive service. The order did not decide whether Bats ultimately will prevail.

The order required defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was filed, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. It set 28 days for Bats’s opposition and 14 days for defendants’ reply, and stated that no hearing would be held on the motion. The court also allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and instructed Bats about mailing copies of filings, keeping the court informed of address changes, prosecuting the case, and requesting extensions of time.