Vargas v. State of California

Background

Jason M. Vargas, an incarcerated person housed at Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California, filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed his first amended complaint under the prisoner-screening requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute 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 complaint named the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Warden Craig Koenig, Captain D. Metcalf, Captain Enrique Galvan, and Chief Medical Executive S. Posson. Vargas alleged that Koenig and other prison guards conducted a July 20, 2020, raid that endangered Black inmates and could spread COVID-19. He also alleged that Koenig, Metcalf, and Galvan later housed people who tested positive for COVID-19 with people who had not tested positive, allowed shared use of showers, phones, and eating trays, and failed to quarantine infected inmates. He alleged that Galvan moved COVID-positive inmates into his housing unit. Vargas further alleged that he contracted COVID-19, received inadequate treatment for his symptoms, and continued to experience long-term symptoms.

Claims the Court Found Cognizable

The court held that, liberally construed, the allegations against Koenig, Metcalf, Galvan, and Posson stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to inmate safety. The court also found cognizable state-law claims for battery, negligence, and negligent supervision against those four officials. “Cognizable” means that the allegations were sufficient at the screening stage for the claims to continue; it does not mean the court found the allegations proven.

Dismissal of State Defendants

The court dismissed the State of California and CDCR from the action. It ruled that the Eleventh Amendment barred Vargas’s claims for damages, retrospective declaratory relief, and unspecified injunctive relief against those defendants. The order stated that no exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity applied to the claims presented.

Order and Case Management

The court ordered service on Koenig, Metcalf, Galvan, and Posson through CDCR’s electronic service program, with United States Marshals Service forms to be used for any defendant who did not waive service. It ordered the defendants to file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was filed, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. Vargas’s opposition would be due 28 days after the motion, and any reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court stated that no hearing would be held on the motion and permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.