Poye-Perez v. Diaz

Background

Serguey Poye-Perez, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, filed a civil-rights action in state court. The defendants removed it to federal court. Poye-Perez alleged that officials violated the Eighth Amendment and state law by transferring more than 100 prisoners from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison on May 30, 2020.

According to the complaint, the sending prison had high COVID-19 rates, while San Quentin had no COVID-19 cases at the time. Poye-Perez alleged that officials did not test or quarantine the transferred prisoners for three to four weeks before the transfer, did not separate them after their arrival, and moved symptomatic prisoners around the prison. He alleged that this infected 1,457 inmates in 29 days. He sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, and declaratory relief.

Screening and Claim

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary review of a prisoner’s claims against governmental entities or officials. The court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.

The court explained that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state law. Liberally construing the complaint, the court held that Poye-Perez plausibly alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Order

The court granted the defendants’ motion to screen the case. It ordered service on Ralph Diaz, Kathleen Allison, Ron Davis, Ronald Broomfield, A. Pachynski, J. Arnold, Dean Borders, and Dr. Joseph Bink through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program, with service by the U.S. Marshals Service for any defendant who does not waive service.

The clerk was directed to correct one defendant’s name in the electronic case system from “Bink” to “Bick.” The service portion of the order, however, lists that defendant as “Dr. Joseph Bink,” creating a name inconsistency within the order.

The court ordered defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 90 days, unless they informed the court that the case could not be resolved that way. It gave Poye-Perez 28 days to respond and defendants 14 days to reply. The court permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and instructed Poye-Perez about document service, address changes, deadlines, and his responsibility to prosecute the case. The order did not resolve the merits of the claim.