O'Bannon v. State of California

Background

Vincent E. O'Bannon, identified as a state prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court stated that his request to proceed without paying the filing fee would be granted in a separate written order.

O'Bannon alleged that more than 100 prisoners, some infected with COVID-19, were transferred from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin in May 2020. He alleged that officials failed to use adequate precautions before, during, and after the transfer, including testing and symptom screening, distancing on buses, and testing and isolation after arrival. He alleged that San Quentin's COVID-19 cases increased from none to 499 in about three weeks, later exceeded 2,000 prisoner cases, and were associated with 26 prisoner deaths by late July. He also alleged inadequate masks and personal protective equipment, failure to follow public-health recommendations, and refusal of offers to provide free COVID-19 testing.

He alleged that officials were aware of his COVID-19 risk factors and that he became infected around June 13, 2020. He named California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, San Quentin State Prison, Ralph Diaz, the Estate of Robert S. Tharratt, Ronald Davis, Ronald Broomfield, Clarence Cryer, Alison Pachynski, Shannon Garrigan, Louie Escobell, Muhammad Farooq, Kirk Torres, and Does 1 through 20.

Screening and Claims

Because a prisoner sued governmental entities and officials, the court conducted the preliminary review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court had 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 applied the rule that a complaint must provide a short and plain statement giving defendants fair notice of the claims.

The court dismissed the claims against Does 1 through 20 without prejudice because O'Bannon made no specific allegations about those unknown defendants. “Without prejudice” means the order did not bar refiling those claims in the circumstances permitted by law.

The court dismissed O'Bannon's familial-association claim without prejudice. It also dismissed his state-created-danger claim because, as pleaded, he alleged harm from contracting COVID-19 rather than harm caused by third parties, which the court identified as a required part of that doctrine. The opinion's conclusion did not add a prejudice qualifier to this dismissal.

The court found cognizable, meaning legally sufficient to proceed past screening, Eighth Amendment claims against Diaz, the Estate of Tharratt, Davis, Broomfield, Cryer, Pachynski, Garrigan, Escobell, Farooq, and Torres. The claims alleged deliberate indifference to O'Bannon's health and safety needs in connection with the prisoner transfer and COVID-19 precautions. The court also found cognizable against those defendants a claim under California Civil Code section 52.1, commonly called the Bane Act, and a negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.

The court found cognizable O'Bannon's Rehabilitation Act claim against California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and San Quentin State Prison. The claim alleged that these defendants failed to accommodate his alleged disabilities and exposed him to a greater risk of COVID-19 than nondisabled prisoners. The opinion identified his alleged conditions as asthma, sleep apnea, an enlarged prostate, breathing difficulties, and advanced age, and noted his allegation that the defendants received federal funds.

Disposition and Case Administration

The order did not enter judgment on the entire action. Instead, it dismissed specified claims and defendants, allowed the listed claims to proceed, and ordered service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The clerk was directed to send the complaint, the order, a service-waiver form, and a summons to the department. The order also described later procedures for defendants who did not waive service.

The court stated that it would issue a scheduling order for summary judgment or another case-ending motion after resolution of common issues in another matter. It also directed O'Bannon to serve copies of his court filings on defense counsel or, until counsel was designated, on the defendants, and cautioned him to keep the court informed of address changes and comply with deadlines.

The opinion text supplied above identifies Edward Davila as the judge in the case metadata, but the order's signature identifies Beth Labson Freeman as the United States District Judge who signed it. This summary uses the signed judge's name.