SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) - An inmate at San Quentin State Prison can proceed with a proposed class action over an outbreak of Covid-19 he blames on the state’s failure to quarantine prisoners who were transferred from another jail in May 2020, an appeals court ruled.
The fact the inmate filed his lawsuit before a state board had formally rejected his claim, as required by law, didn’t justify dismissal, the First Appellate District Court ruled in a decision upholding the doctrine of “substantial compliance.” In an unpublished portion of the opinion, the court also rejected the state’s argument the lawsuit was barred by another law providing government immunity from most prisoner tort claims.
Steven Malear sued the state after he was diagnosed with Covid-19, claiming he was infected after 194 prisoners were transferred from Chino Institute for Men to San Quentin. All of the men had tested negative for Covid two weeks before the transfer, but Malear claims some were infected by the time they were moved. A month later, some 1,400 inmates at San Quentin tested positive in an outbreak Malear blamed on the Chino transferees.
The lawsuit claims San Quentin officials knew or should have known of the risk and failed to “summon immediate care,” in the form of screening transferees and isolating inmates who tested positive.
Malear presented his claim against the state on July 15, 2020 and filed his lawsuit on July 27. On July 29, the Government Claims Program notified him it had rejected his claim. On Oct. 23, 2020, Malear filed an amended complaint stating he had complied with the claim presentation requirements. He didn’t serve the state with his lawsuit until Nov. 3, but a trial court dismissed the case because the first complaint was filed before his claim had been rejected.
The appeals court reversed in a March 13 decision.
California law says no prisoner lawsuits may be filed until a written claim has been presented and acted upon by the Government Claims Program, “or has been deemed to have been rejected.” While Malear appeared to violate the law by suing before his claim had been rejected, the court said, he cured the problem by filing an amended complaint later.
“We find it appropriate to elevate substance over form,” the appeals court ruled. The law is intended to allow government defendants time to evaluate a claim and avoid litigation expense by offering to settle, the court ruled, but the state didn’t incur any litigation costs over Malear’s premature filing since it wasn’t served until months later.
“When a lawsuit is prematurely filed before the actual or deemed denial of a government claim, application of the substantial compliance doctrine is generally appropriate if the original complaint is not served before an amended complaint alleging the requisite denial of a government claim is filed,” the court concluded.
In an unpublished opinion, the court also ruled that Malear’s claims weren’t barred by California Section 845.6, which says the government isn’t liable for injuries caused by failure to provide medical care unless an employee knows or should know the prisoner “is in need of immediate medical care.”
Malear claimed the “immediate medical care” needed was testing and quarantine of Covid-positive inmates before they arrived at San Quentin. The state argued Malear failed to allege a “serious and obvious medical condition” as required by some court decisions, especially since he didn’t come down with Covid until later. But while some courts have applied the “serious and obvious” language, the appeals court wrote, those words aren’t in the statute.
“In any event, we conclude the complaint sufficiently states facts that support the inference that COVID-19 is a `serious’ (indeed fatal) infectious disease to some who contract it, and that the resulting need for immediate medical quarantine measures was `obvious’ to all by May 2020,” the court wrote.
The state also argued the inmates were tested before transfer and Malear was only challenging how the testing was done, which constituted a medical malpractice claim precluded by Section 845.6. The appeals court said the state’s arguments were backed by exhibits, not proper evidence, however. At the same time, the court said it would overlook statements by Malear’s lawyer at oral argument that supported the idea the lawsuit was over how the state handled its Covid screening process before the prisoner transfer.
“Statements of counsel during argument generally are not binding on the client,” the court said.