A federal ruling found that state criminal officials were not entitled to immunity from allegations that they recklessly exposed San Quentin inmates to covid-19.
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – California criminal officers face accusations that they ruthlessly ignored the constitutional rights of inmates by orchestrating a criminal movement that sparked a fatal outbreak of Covid-19 in San Quentin.
The U. S. District Judge USA William Orrick III refused to dismiss a series of lawsuits filed through inmates, saying state and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation criminal medical leaders caused a large COVID-19 outbreak in San Quentin when they ordered the transfer of 122 medically vulnerable inmates. . of the California Institution for Men in Chinese.
The move was intended to protect those inmates from the outbreak at Chino prison, according to a report by the state’s inspector general.
Prior to his arrival on May 30, 2020, San Quentin had no positive cases of Covid. But without delay after the transfer, 15 of the transferred prisoners tested positive. Within 3 weeks, 1135 inmates from San Quentin had become inflamed. people amounted to 2,237 prisoners and 277 members at the end of August. One member and 28 prisoners died.
Orrick found that authorities’ handling of the move and failure to quarantine inflamed IDPs put San Quentin inmates at greater risk of contracting covid-19, which was a sufficient violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on punishment and cruelty.
“The plausibility of the plaintiffs’ assertions that the defendants intentionally disassociated themselves from the threat of exposure related to the move, the protocol of the move, and the containment strategy or their absence upon receiving the prisoners in San Quentin, is reinforced through the allegations contained in the incorporated brief. document. OIG Report,” the ruling wrote in a resolution covering 8 federal lawsuits filed in the Northern District.
At a July 2020 hearing, California lawmakers criticized the measure and the fatal virus outbreak that followed as the “worst criminal fitness challenge in the state’s history. “The following inspector general’s report found that the CDCR and California Correctional Health Services had a public fitness disaster.
Retired CDCR Secretary Ralph Diaz, former San Quentin Director Ronald Davis, current Acting Director Ronald Broomfield, Mona Houston, Director of Chino from August 2019 to January 4, 2021, and several leading medical officials and “executive leaders” of physical care in Chino and San Quentin are among the defendants named in the prosecution of the detainees.
Prison officials claimed immunity for failing to take effective countermeasures under the Public Preparedness and Emergency Preparedness Act, a law enacted in 2005 to protect public officials from liability during a public physical emergency. The U. S. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesIssued an update in March 2020 extending immunity from liability to certain Americans and state agencies in response to the pandemic, with officials stating that they “have the authority to expand policies and oversee the control of Covid-19 testing, testing, and distribution of PPE, all of which are countermeasures protected by law.
Orrick found that the PREP Act covers the removal of a prisoner and that the Act confers immunity on all Covid-related decisions in prison.
“Prisons are not systems of countermeasures, nor are they countermeasure distribution posts. While the law would possibly confer immunity for handling countermeasures in a criminal context, it does not serve to turn all criminal operations into countermeasures systems or posts so that any Covid-related conduct or resolution made in this context is immune,” he wrote, adding: “Plaintiffs sometimes allege that defendants disclose them to a greater threat of contracting Covid by transferring CIM offenders. to SQSP, without putting in place adequate testing and distancing prior to and transfer, and failing to put in place adequate quarantine measures after transfer.
The ruling also concluded that all designated officials participated in the resolution to continue the movement in a way that would increase the Covid threat from detainees, writing: “At the rejection movement stage, I cannot settle for the defendants not being warned that their conduct may violate the Constitution.
Orrick said the defendants won a “fair warning” given the law at the time that exposing inmates to an increased risk of contracting a contagious disease is unconstitutional.
CDCR spokeswoman Dana Simas said the branch was reviewing the resolution for next steps.
Subscribe to the Top 8, a summary of the day’s stories right in your inbox Monday through Friday.