Mendez v. Kallis
- David Doty
- 0:21-cv-00178
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Mendez v. Kallis, Judge Doty dismissed the case without prejudice and denied Mendez’s application to proceed without paying filing fees.
Raphael Mendez’s case was dismissed without prejudice, and his application to proceed without paying the filing fee was denied. The defendants were not required to proceed on the claim in this case.
What happened
In Mendez v. Kallis, Raphael Mendez alleged that prison officials exposed him to inmates with COVID-19 and were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. He said he lost his sense of taste and smell for several days and suggested that the defendants knowingly spread the virus among inmates.
Mendez objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendation that the case be dismissed, arguing that his claim was for deliberate indifference rather than a claim under the Supreme Court’s Bivens decision. The court concluded that the claim was properly treated as a Bivens claim and that Mendez had not plausibly alleged that the defendants deliberately disregarded his medical needs.
Judge Doty overruled the objection and adopted the recommendation in full. The case was dismissed without prejudice, and Mendez’s application to proceed without paying filing fees was denied.
The detailed version
- Mendez v. Kallis · No. 0:21-cv-00178
- David Doty
- Apr. 14, 2021
Background
Raphael Mendez, representing himself, objected to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright’s recommendation that his case be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Mendez alleged that FMC Rochester and individually named defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs because they placed him in a unit with inmates who had tested positive for COVID-19 and displayed symptoms.
Mendez appeared to advance two possible theories: that his test was falsely positive and he became infected only after placement with COVID-positive inmates, or that his test was accurate but he became symptomatic because he was placed with symptomatic inmates. He reported losing his sense of taste and smell for several days. In his objection, he also mentioned an unspecified respiratory problem.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the recommendation independently and found it well reasoned and correct. It agreed that Mendez’s claim was properly construed as arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, rather than under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The court also held that, even if that characterization were wrong, Mendez had not adequately pleaded deliberate indifference. Such a claim requires allegations showing both an objectively serious medical need and that officials knew about the need but deliberately disregarded it. The court assumed that a COVID-19 diagnosis without complications could qualify as a serious medical need, but found that Mendez had not alleged that the defendants knew his test was inaccurate or knew that placing him with symptomatic inmates would cause him harm. The court also found no plausible allegation that defendants failed to provide medical care.
The court stated that defendants were justified in relying on Mendez’s COVID-19 test when placing him with other positive inmates. It also said it was aware of no evidence that placing asymptomatic and symptomatic inmates together would cause the former to develop symptoms that otherwise would not have occurred.
Disposition
The court overruled Mendez’s objection, adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety, and dismissed the case without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It also denied Mendez’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.