Colvin v. State of California

Background

Lovell Colvin, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that defendants transferred more than 100 inmates from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin in May 2020, including some inmates infected with COVID-19. According to the complaint, defendants failed to take adequate precautions before, during, and after the transfer, including testing and screening inmates, maintaining distance on buses, and testing and isolating transferred inmates after arrival.

Colvin alleged that San Quentin went from having no COVID-19 cases to 499 cases over approximately three weeks, later had more than 2,000 prisoner cases, and experienced 26 prisoner deaths by late July. He also alleged that defendants knew about his heart disease, blood-pressure problems, arrhythmia, and advanced age, and that he contracted COVID-19 around June 20, 2020.

Claims and Screening Standard

Because Colvin sought relief from governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires the court to identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court applied the rule that a complaint must contain enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible, rather than merely stating labels or legal conclusions.

Colvin alleged that 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 unnamed defendants violated the Eighth Amendment through deliberate indifference to his medical and safety needs. He also alleged interference with familial association, a Fourteenth Amendment state-created-danger claim, and a claim under California Civil Code section 52.1, known as the Bane Act. He brought a negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim against those individual defendants. Against the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and San Quentin State Prison, he brought claims under the Rehabilitation Act.

Court’s Rulings

The court dismissed the claims against Does 1 through 20 without prejudice because the complaint made no specific allegations about them. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar a later filing based on an adequately stated claim.

The court dismissed Colvin’s familial-association claim without prejudice because he made no specific allegations showing deprivation of that right. It dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment state-created-danger claim with prejudice because Colvin alleged that he was harmed by contracting COVID-19, not by third parties, and the court concluded that no facts could be alleged under these circumstances to state that type of claim.

The court determined that Colvin stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Diaz, the Estate of Tharratt, Davis, Broomfield, Cryer, Pachynski, Garrigan, Escobell, Farooq, and Torres. It also found cognizable his Bane Act and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims against those defendants. The court further found that he stated a cognizable Rehabilitation Act claim against the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and San Quentin State Prison.

A finding that a claim is cognizable at screening means the claim is sufficiently pleaded to proceed; it does not decide whether Colvin will ultimately prove liability. Judge Edward J. Davila ordered service on the defendants whose claims remained and stated that scheduling for summary judgment or another case-ending motion would follow resolution of common issues in related proceedings.