Johnson v. State of California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

Background

Duane Johnson, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that defendants transferred more than 100 prisoners, some infected with COVID-19, from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison in May 2020. He alleged that defendants failed to take adequate precautions before, during, and after the transfer, including timely testing and symptom screening, distancing on buses, testing and isolation after arrival, adequate masks and personal protective equipment, and other measures to limit the virus’s spread.

Johnson alleged that he had mixed hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and prediabetes, that defendants knew about those conditions, and that he became infected with COVID-19 in June 2020.

Claims and screening

Because Johnson sued governmental entities and officials as a prisoner, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening required the court to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or barred by immunity.

The court found cognizable—that is, legally sufficient to proceed at this stage—Eighth Amendment claims against Ralph Diaz, the Estate of Robert S. Tharratt, Ronald Davis, Ronald Broomfield, Clarence Cryer, Alison Pachynski, Shannon Garrigan, Louie Escobell, Muhammad Farooq, and Kirk Torres. The claims allege deliberate indifference to Johnson’s health and safety needs in connection with the prisoner transfer and the COVID-19 response.

The court also found a cognizable claim under California Civil Code section 52.1, known as the Bane Act, based on allegations that defendants acted with reckless disregard for Johnson’s constitutional rights. It found a cognizable negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim based on the alleged breach of defendants’ duty of care to Johnson as a prisoner and his alleged exposure to COVID-19.

The court found a cognizable Rehabilitation Act claim against the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and San Quentin State Prison. Johnson alleged that he had conditions covered by the Act, that the defendants received federal assistance, and that they failed to provide accommodations such as enhanced protective equipment, sanitation, social distancing, masking, and other measures addressing the pandemic.

Ruling and next steps

The court ordered that service proceed on the defendants through the United States Marshals Service and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program, as specified in the order. It separately stated that Johnson would be granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The order directed defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 90 days, or to inform the court if the case could not be resolved that way. It set deadlines for Johnson’s opposition and defendants’ reply, allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and instructed Johnson to serve his filings on defendants or their counsel. Judge Jeffrey S. White’s order allowed the identified claims to move forward; it was not a final decision on whether Johnson would ultimately prevail.