Avila v. Schnell

Background

Adolfo Gutierrez Avila, Jr., an incarcerated person in Minnesota, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state officials for violating constitutional rights. He sued Paul Schnell, Vicki Janssen, Jeanette Wilson, Jessica Olson, and Tina Sneen in their individual capacities. Avila alleged that the defendants’ COVID-19 mitigation practices violated the Eighth Amendment by exposing him to a known risk of infection.

Avila alleged that his cellmate tested positive for COVID-19 on November 5, 2020, while Avila tested negative, but prison officials did not separate them. He alleged that they remained together in an approximately 8-by-12-foot cell for at least 23 hours a day, and that he tested positive on November 19, 2020. He also alleged a second infection around February 3, 2022. In his proposed Second Amended Complaint, Avila attributed these events to Commissioner Schnell’s “stay with unit” plan and alleged that health-services officials failed to respond to his written requests for safer housing.

Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, arguing that Avila had not adequately alleged each defendant’s personal involvement, had not stated an Eighth Amendment claim, and that qualified immunity protected all defendants. Avila sought to file a Second Amended Complaint and renewed his request for appointed counsel.

Analysis

The court treated the proposed Second Amended Complaint as subject to the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It declined to reject the proposed amendment solely because Avila had not complied with a local rule requiring redlined amendments, citing his status as a self-represented prisoner and construing his filings liberally.

On personal involvement, the court concluded that Avila adequately alleged that Commissioner Schnell created and maintained the “stay with unit” policy and therefore alleged more than liability based only on supervisory authority. The court found insufficient allegations against Warden Janssen because Avila appeared to allege that she merely followed Schnell’s directives, without creating the challenged policy or otherwise directly participating in the alleged violations. The court found sufficient allegations against Wilson, Olson, and Sneen because Avila alleged that they were involved in isolation decisions, knew he was housed with a COVID-positive cellmate, did not take corrective action after receiving his requests, and that he was subsequently infected.

The court determined that COVID-19 presented an objectively serious medical risk and that Avila’s allegations of being forced to share a small cell with a known COVID-positive person, followed by an infection, were enough at the pleading stage to describe a potentially viable Eighth Amendment claim. The court distinguished cases involving more general complaints about sanitation, masks, air quality, or social distancing.

The court nevertheless concluded that qualified immunity protected the defendants. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from personal liability for money damages unless the plaintiff shows both a constitutional violation and that the unlawfulness of the specific conduct was clearly established at the time. The court held that, although the general right to protection from serious harm in prison was clearly established, it was not clearly established that the challenged conduct—having an inmate share a cell with a COVID-positive cellmate—was unconstitutional under the circumstances.

Disposition

The court ordered that Avila’s renewed Motion to Appoint Counsel be DENIED. It recommended that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint be GRANTED, that the action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that Avila’s motion to further amend the complaint be DENIED.

The document was an Order and Report and Recommendation signed by United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko. The notice explained that the recommended dispositions were not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit and that the parties could file written objections within the time allowed by the local rules. The supplied case metadata identifies Nancy Brasel as the judge, but the opinion itself is signed by Douglas L. Micko; this summary uses the judge named in the opinion.