Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01755/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01755-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RODNEY KARL BLACKWELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PATRICK COVELLO, Warden, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-1755 KJM DB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims defendants have failed to provide a safe prison environment in 

violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On January 12, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. (ECF No. 31.) Neither party 

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1

 

///// 

1

 On April 11, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to the findings 

and recommendations. ECF No. 31. On April 19, 2022, the magistrate judge denied the motion 

without prejudice to its renewal that included an explanation why the extension had not been 

sought within the initial time period for filing objections. ECF No. 33 at 2. Plaintiff did not 

renew the motion. 

Case 2:20-cv-01755-DJC-SCR Document 34 Filed 09/06/22 Page 1 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 

602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 

de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 

by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 

. . . .”). 

The magistrate judge recommends granting defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in 

forma pauperis status as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See generally F&Rs, ECF No. 31. The 

court agrees with the magistrate judge’s finding that plaintiff has four “strikes” within the 

meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Id. at 4–5. The court does not, however, agree with the 

magistrate judge’s finding that plaintiff did not sufficiently allege “he was ‘under imminent 

danger of serious physical injury’ at the time he filed the instant action.” Id. at 5 (citing 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). 

As the magistrate judge correctly finds, the court assesses the threat of imminent danger 

based on conditions when the original complaint was filed. Id. (collecting authority); see also

Andrews v. Cervantes, 483 F.3d 1047, 1053–55 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff’s complaint was filed 

August 31, 2020. As the magistrate judge found in an order screening the original complaint, 

Plaintiff alleges the events giving rise to the claim occurred while he 

was incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”). (ECF No. 1 

at 1.) He has identified MCSP Warden Covello and the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) as 

defendants in this action. (Id. at 2.) 

Plaintiff claims that the CDCR and warden Covello have failed to 

provide a safe prison environment in light of the COVID-19 

pandemic. Plaintiff alleges he is particularly vulnerable because he 

is sixty years old and suffers from diabetes, kidney failure, and high 

blood pressure. (Id. at 12–13.) He claims that because he suffers from 

these medical conditions he should be released immediately. He 

further claims that defendants have not done enough to mitigate the 

overcrowding in California prisons and have housed infected inmates 

around non-infected inmates. He alleges defendants have “chose to 

do nothing when the Governor ordered the release of mass amounts 

of inmates.” (Id. at 13.) Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form 

of immediate early release or monetary compensation. (Id. at 15.) 

ECF No. 6 at 3-4. 

///// 

Case 2:20-cv-01755-DJC-SCR Document 34 Filed 09/06/22 Page 2 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

In a January 4, 2021 order dismissing the original complaint with leave to amend, the 

magistrate judge took “judicial notice of materials on CDCR’s website that show CDCR’s 

response to the pandemic.” Id. at 5 (citing the CDCR’s website2). The contents of those 

materials are not subject to judicial notice. A court may take judicial notice of “a fact that is not 

subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial 

jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot 

reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The particulars of the CDCR’s response to the 

COVID-19 pandemic are not “generally known.” Nor can those particulars be accurately and 

readily determined from a source of unquestionable accuracy. It may be possible to take judicial 

notice of the website’s existence as establishing that the CDCR’s has made certain public claims, 

but those claims do not conclusively establish what the CDCR’s policy actually is or was. 

In addition, even if the court were to assume the CDCR had a policy in place, it would 

remain unclear whether and when those mitigation measures were put in place at Mule Creek. 

The CDCR has also posted a timeline of information and updates on COVID-19 in CDCR prisons 

on its website.3

 In that timeline, CDCR represents that by August 2020, CDCR and California’s 

governor had issued several directives aimed at mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic 

in California’s prisons. As discussed in the preceding paragraph, it may be possible to take 

judicial notice of the existence of this timeline as establishing that CDCR has made certain public 

claims regarding its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Even assuming the court does so, 

however, in the original complaint dated August 27, 2020, plaintiff alleges defendants were 

(1) continuing to house COVID-19 positive inmates at Mule Creek with non-infected inmates and 

(2) exposing non-infected inmates to risk of COVID-19 infection through inadequate food tray 

sanitation, “yard activities, trash, water fountains, and air ventilation ducts.” ECF No. 1 at 13. 

Liberally construed, these allegations suggest Mule Creek was not complying with the CDCR’s 

directives—assuming, again, that the website depicted those directives accurately. 

2 https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/covid19/covid-19-response-efforts/#CFC. 

3 https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/covid19/updates/. 

Case 2:20-cv-01755-DJC-SCR Document 34 Filed 09/06/22 Page 3 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4 

In combination with plaintiff’s allegations of his multiple medical conditions, these 

allegations suffice to demonstrate a threat of imminent danger at the time the complaint was filed. 

See Andrews, 493 F.3 at 1056–57; cf. Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, 845 F. App’x 530, 534 (9th Cir. 

2021) (unpublished) (affirming temporary restraining order on Fifth Amendment claim by 

immigration detainees because “COVID-19 posed grave health risks, the crowded detention 

facilities were a ‘tinderbox’ for COVID-19 transmission, and COVID-19 posed a serious healthrisk to all detainees—not only those in high-risk categories” and because “the government had 

only recently taken modest measures in response to the pandemic and that social distancing was 

still impossible for most detainees.”). 

The magistrate judge therefore erred in concluding that plaintiff did not adequately allege 

a threat of imminent danger at the time the complaint was filed. Accordingly, the court declines 

to adopt the finding that plaintiff failed to adequately allege a threat of imminent harm at the time 

the complaint was filed and the recommendation that his in forma pauperis status be revoked. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 12, 2022, are adopted in part to the 

extent they are consistent with this order; 

2. Defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 27) is 

denied; and 

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 

proceedings, consistent with this order. 

DATED: September 6, 2022. 

Case 2:20-cv-01755-DJC-SCR Document 34 Filed 09/06/22 Page 4 of 4