Walker v. Allison

Background

Jerry Lee Walker, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Kathleen Allison and other officials violated the Eighth Amendment by transferring 122 inmates from the California Institution for Men, where there was a COVID-19 outbreak, to San Quentin State Prison on May 30, 2020. Walker alleged that San Quentin had poor ventilation and open-front housing, that officials ignored safety measures, and that he contracted COVID-19 in July 2020.

Walker named Ron Broomfield, Ralph Diaz, Ron Davis, Kathleen Allison, J. Clark Kelso, Alison Pachynski, L. Escobell, Clarence Cryer, Dean Borders, and Joseph Bick as defendants. He sued them in both their individual and official capacities.

Screening and claims

Because Walker was a prisoner suing governmental officials, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court was required to identify claims that were legally sufficient and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or barred by immunity.

The court held that, when read generously, Walker’s allegations stated a legally sufficient Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to his safety against all defendants. The court explained that a prison official is deliberately indifferent when the official knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to reduce it. The court found the allegations plausible based on the defendants’ described positions within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or at the prisons involved.

Official-capacity damages claims

The court dismissed Walker’s claims for damages against the defendants in their official capacities. It relied on the Eleventh Amendment, which generally bars damages suits in federal court against a state without the state’s consent, and on the rule that an official-capacity suit is treated as a suit against the official’s office and therefore the state. The court did not state that Walker’s individual-capacity claims were dismissed.

Order

The court ordered service on Broomfield, Diaz, Davis, Allison, Pachynski, Escobell, Cryer, Borders, and Bick through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program. It ordered separate electronic service on Kelso and his attorney. The order also set procedures for waivers of service and service by the United States Marshals Service if necessary.

The court stated that it would issue a scheduling order for summary-judgment or other dispositive-motion briefing after resolution of common issues in a related matter, identified as No. 22-mc-80066-WHO. Walker was instructed to serve future court communications on defense counsel, prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with filing deadlines and other court orders.