Filed Date: Sept. 8, 2021
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is a class action lawsuit brought by an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The plaintiff was incarcerated at the San Quentin State Prison (SQ) in San Quentin, California, and brought this lawsuit under 42 USC § 1983 for violations of the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishments clause. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, sued the secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations (CDCR), as well as various state employees of the California Institute of Men (CIM) on behalf of the thousands of SQ inmates who were diagnosed with COVID-19 while in prison. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on September 8, 2021, and assigned to Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. The plaintiff sought class certification, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and legal costs.
In its complaint, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference when they transferred 122 inmates from CIM to SQ from May 28, 2020, to May 30, 2020. San Quentin previously had no cases of COVID in its prisoner population. Allegedly, the transferred inmates were not properly screened or tested for COVID, or isolated from the SQ population, resulting in 29 deaths and approximately 2,500 SQ inmates becoming infected with the virus. The plaintiff sought to certify a class consisting of all current and former inmates at San Quentin State Prison who (1) have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and (2) for whom the transfer of inmates from Chino Institute for Men to San Quentin State Prison between May 28, 2020 and May 30, 2020, was a substantial factor in their diagnosis. The plaintiff alleged that the reckless disregard for the inmates' health and safety amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On September 22, 2021, the plaintiff declined to proceed his case before a magistrate judge. The case was reassigned to District Judge William H. Orrick on September 24, 2021.
On December 31, 2021, the defendants moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that they were (1) entitled to qualified immunity, and (2) entitled to immunity under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act. On March 7, 2022, the court ordered that 32 cases, including this one, would be assigned to Judge Orrick for the limited purpose of resolving certain common issues concerning claims of COVID exposure from the May 2020 transfer of prisoners from CIM to SQ (3:22-mc-80066-WHO). Thus, on March 10, 2022, in light of this order of limited assignment, the court denied the motion to dismiss, pending the resolution of the identified common issues.
On July 15, 2022, the court resolved the common issues of qualified immunity and PREP Act immunity by denying those claims. For qualified immunity, the court held that the defendants had notice that their conduct might be unconstitutional, because the law at the time had warned that deliberate indifference to prisoners' serious medical needs from contracting a communicable disease would potentially amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, it was appropriate to deny qualified immunity at the pleading stage, because precedent had established that exposure to diseases was unconstitutional. For PREP Act immunity, the court held that the transfer of prisoners was not a covered countermeasure under the PREP Act. Moreover, prisons themselves are not countermeasure programs, nor are they locations for the purpose of distributing and dispensing countermeasures. 2022 WL 2789808.
On July 21, 2022, the defendants filed an interlocutory appeal to the United States Circuit Court for the Ninth Circuit to review the district court's order on the immunity issues. On July 27, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to stay proceedings in this case pending the appeal. On August 29, 2022, the district court granted the unopposed motion to stay.
The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on May 10, 2023. On October 13, 2023, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the complaints stated Eighth Amendment claims that were clearly established at the time of the underlying events and therefore affirmed the denial of qualified immunity. The court agreed with the lower court that the claims at issue did not implicate the use or administration of a covered countermeasure and therefore affirmed the denial of PREP Act immunity. 2023 WL 6784355.
As of October 14, 2023, the case was ongoing, with the stay still in effect.
Summary Authors
Jerry Lan (10/1/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60370854/parties/thorpe-v-diaz/
Allen, Teresa Denise (California)
Apps, Stanley R (California)
Belyi, Maria (California)
Bolden, Willie (California)
Brown, Roy L. (California)
Allen, Teresa Denise (California)
Cajina, Fulvio Francisco (California)
Carlson, Matthew D. (California)
Comundoiwilla, Lamavis (California)
Crittenden, Steve (California)
Dixon, Gregory J. (California)
Ford, Brian Allen (California)
Haddad, Michael J. (California)
Hall, Eugene Samuel (California)
Hollis, Ellis Clay (California)
Hudson, Toriano Germaine (California)
Jackson, Arthur Duane (California)
Johnson, Paul David (California)
Johnson, LaCedric W. (California)
Jones, Raymond E. (California)
Kelly, Charles Carroll (California)
Lopez, Alejandro Delgadillo (California)
Neilson, Andrew Ryan (California)
O'Bannon, Vincent E. (California)
Rhodes, Kenneth D. (California)
Schrubb, Kevin R. (California)
Smith, Tyler Rogers (California)
Stormer, Dan Lewis (California)
Vines, Paris Donte (California)
Desta, Zewugeberhan Zegeye (California)
Fisher, Jeffrey Thomas (California)
Gille, Ryan Thomas (California)
Kallberg, Jacqueline Anne (California)
Lessner, Tessa R. (California)
Lewis, Kyle Anthony (California)
Mark, Arthur Bernard (California)
Nygaard, Jennifer J. (California)
Padua, Alexander James (California)
Perkins, Robert Mitchell (California)
Shryock, Cassandra Jean (California)
Skebe, Howard Phillip (California)
Tartaglio, Anthony James (California)
Touchstone, Jaime G. (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60370854/thorpe-v-diaz/
Last updated April 13, 2025, 8:56 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 8, 2021
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
An inmate at the San Quentin State Prison who contracted COVID while incarcerated, on behalf of himself and a proposed class consisting of all current and former inmates at San Quentin State Prison who (1) have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and (2) for whom the transfer of inmates from Chino Institute for Men to San Quentin State Prison between May 28, 2020 and May 30, 2020, was a substantial factor in their diagnosis. The plaintiff alleged that the reckless disregard for the inmates' health and safety amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
San Quentin State Prison, State
California Institute for Men, State
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, State
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Medical/Mental Health Care: