Comundoiwilla v. Diaz

Background

Lamavis Comundoiwilla, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action in state court. The defendants removed it to federal court, paid the filing fee, and asked the court to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Comundoiwilla alleged that the defendants transferred more than 100 inmates from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison in May 2020, even though some inmates were infected with COVID-19. He alleged that the defendants knew or should have known the transfer could cause an outbreak and harm him. He alleged that he caught COVID-19 on July 21, 2020, experienced symptoms, and was taken to a hospital after reporting chest pain related to COVID-19 complications.

He alleged that these actions and failures violated the Eighth Amendment and also appeared to assert a California negligence claim. He sought declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and costs. He sued Ralph Diaz, Kathleen Allison, Ron Davis, Alison Pachynski, L. Escobell, J. Arnold, Dean Borders, and Joseph Bick in their individual and official capacities.

Screening and Claims

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must screen a prisoner's complaint seeking relief from a governmental entity or officer. The court must identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Applying that standard, the court held that the allegations, liberally construed, stated a plausible Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to safety against the named defendants. The court also held that the allegations satisfied the requirements for supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law negligence claim and stated that it would exercise that jurisdiction.

The court separately ruled that the Eleventh Amendment barred damages claims based on defendants' actions in their official capacities. The court explained that an official-capacity suit for damages is treated as a suit against the state, and that state officials acting in their official capacities are not persons for purposes of such a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Appointment of Counsel

Comundoiwilla requested appointed counsel. The court concluded that counsel may be requested for an indigent litigant only in exceptional circumstances, considering the likelihood of success and the litigant's ability to present the claims in light of their complexity. It found that Comundoiwilla had adequately presented his claims and that the issues were not complex, so it denied the request.

Rulings and Case Status

The court granted the defendants' motion to screen the case. It directed the clerk to correct Joseph Bick's last name in the electronic filing system from “Bink” to “Bick.” It denied Comundoiwilla's motion to appoint counsel.

The court dismissed Comundoiwilla's claims for damages based on defendants' official-capacity actions as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. It held that Comundoiwilla stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against the named defendants and would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related negligence claim. The case would go forward on those two claims.

The court stated that Diaz, Allison, Davis, and Bick had already appeared, so service was not ordered for them. It directed service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation electronic-service program for Pachynski, Escobell, Arnold, and Borders. The court also stated that it would issue a scheduling order for summary-judgment or other dispositive-motion briefing after resolution of common issues in another matter. Judge Edward Davila entered the order.