Lakota v. Allen

Background

Danny Strongbear Lakota, a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that medical and correctional staff failed to prevent a COVID-19 outbreak, during which he became infected, and failed to provide constitutionally adequate treatment for COVID-19 and subsequent pneumonia. He also alleged that correctional defendants failed to protect him from extortion and assault by other prisoners.

The court previously dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, limiting any amended claims to related claims. When no amended complaint appeared on the docket, the court dismissed the case without prejudice and entered judgment for the defendants. The court later learned from Lakota’s letter that he had intended to file an amended complaint but had not included the case number, so the filing was not docketed as an amended complaint. The First Amended Complaint was then docketed.

Allegations in the First Amended Complaint

Lakota alleged that ten prisoners tested positive for COVID-19 at Salinas Valley State Prison on December 13, 2020, but were released for yard recreation instead of being isolated. He alleged that this caused a mass outbreak in his building and that A. Halstead and G.R. Padilla were directly responsible for failing to lock down and isolate the infected environment.

Lakota further alleged that Nurse Nancy (Serrato) and Officer Covarrubias took no action after he reported that he was infected and discouraged him from submitting a medical request form. He alleged that a Jane Doe nurse failed to act after he became incapacitated; that Su refused to help when Lakota reported that he could not breathe; that Serrato did not help him; and that Su discarded his medical request forms. Lakota also alleged that Kauffman refused to press an alarm, partly at Covarrubias’s instruction, and that an unidentified nurse responded after he collapsed and told him to use his inhaler while he was gasping for air.

After Lakota was taken for treatment, x-rays showed pneumonia. He alleged that two unidentified doctors prescribed antibiotics but refused breathing treatment, oxygen, or other breathing assistance. He claimed that these actions amounted to medical malpractice and deliberate indifference because, in his view, his pneumonia should have been treated with oxygen. He also alleged that a lung expert later determined that he had permanent lung damage resulting from his COVID-19 infection and pneumonia.

Screening analysis

Because Lakota was seeking relief from employees of a governmental entity, the court screened the First Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires the court to identify claims that are legally viable and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that it must read pleadings filed without a lawyer liberally.

The court dismissed T. Allen because Lakota made no allegations against Allen. Construing the complaint liberally, the court found that Lakota stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Halstead and Padilla for deliberate indifference to his safety. The court also found that Lakota stated an Eighth Amendment claim against the remaining defendants for failing to provide, or preventing him from receiving, constitutionally adequate medical care.

The court allowed Lakota to proceed against Nurse Jane Doe, Nurse John Doe, and Doctors John Doe 1 and 2 even though their names were unknown. It stated that the alleged incidents had sufficiently precise dates and locations that discovery could identify them. Lakota was required to identify those defendants by the deadline for opposing the defendants’ dispositive motion; otherwise, they would be dismissed.

Order

The court ordered the Clerk to vacate the earlier dismissal and related judgment and to reopen the case. It dismissed T. Allen. It ordered service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program on A. Halstead, G.R. Padilla, L.V.N. Serrato, L.V.N. Su, and Correctional Officer Covarrubias.

The order set deadlines for service waivers, answers, dispositive motions, opposition and reply briefs, and identification of the Doe defendants. It also authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and advised Lakota of his responsibilities to serve filings, maintain a current address, prosecute the case, and comply with court orders.

This was a screening and case-management order. It did not decide whether Lakota would ultimately prevail on his Eighth Amendment claims.