Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-02380/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-02380-7/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

SALVADOR LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SINGH PRAVEEN,

Defendant.

No. 2:21-cv-02380-DJC-EFB (PC)

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On March 1, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgement. (Mot. 

Summ. J. (“MSJ”) (ECF No. 32)), which Plaintiff opposed (Opp’n (ECF No. 41)). On

December 19, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

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 fourteen 

days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 

49.)

The Court has reviewed the file and declines to adopt the findings and 

recommendations.

Case 2:21-cv-02380-DJC-EFB Document 51 Filed 03/27/24 Page 1 of 5
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

A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment if they are deliberately 

indifferent to serious threats to the inmate’s safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 

832 (1994). As Defendant has conceded “’no one questions that [COVID-19] poses a 

substantial risk of serious harm’ to inmates . . . .” (Reply (ECF No. 41) (quoting Plata v. 

Newsom, 445 F. Supp. 3d 557, 559 (N.D. Cal. 2020))); see also Peyton v. Cates, No. 

1:22-cv-00151-JLT-EPG, 2022 WL 1430752, at *6 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2022). The 

questions at issue here, instead, are whether Defendant’s actions or inactions

demonstrated deliberate indifference to that risk of harm, and whether Defendant in 

fact caused Plaintiff harm. Peyton, 2022 WL 1430752, at *6. 

Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of fact as 

to whether Defendant deliberately disregarded the risk of infecting Plaintiff with 

Covid-19. In his Declaration, Plaintiff attests that despite exhibiting Covid-19 

symptoms including coughing, runny nose, and red eyes, Defendant reported to work 

at the prison and worked in close proximity to Plaintiff without wearing proper 

protective equipment such as a face mask. (Opp’n, Ex. 1, Decl. of S. Lopez at 1–2.) 

Plaintiff and Defendant worked together on Friday November 13, 2020, and Monday 

through Wednesday November 16 through 18, 2020. (MSJ, Decl. of D. Santos, Exs. B 

and D (ECF No. 32-6).) On November 17, 2020, Defendant took a Covid-19 test which 

returned a positive result on either November 19 or 20, 2020, confirming that 

Defendant was infected with Covid-19 as of at least November 17, 2020. (Decl. of S. 

Lopez at 2; Opp’n., Ex. 3, Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Interrog. at 3.) 

Defendant attempts to shield himself by emphasizing the Covid-19 protocols 

put in place by Mule Creek State Prison and the fact that Defendant went on leave 

after receiving a positive test result. However, these facts only go toward whether the 

prison reasonably responded to a risk of harm, not whether Defendant personally 

disregarded the risk of harm.1 Plaintiff’s core allegations are that Defendant flouted 

1 Defendant’s reliance on the fact that Plaintiff receiving medical care after contracting Covid-19 is 

similarly misplaced because, again, it goes to the facility’s response, not Defendant’s. 

Case 2:21-cv-02380-DJC-EFB Document 51 Filed 03/27/24 Page 2 of 5
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

the prison’s protocols and disregarded the risk of exposing Plaintiff to Covid before

Defendant received a positive test result. While the prison required employees to 

submit a health survey every day, Plaintiff attests in his Declaration that Defendant said 

he was not reporting his symptoms because he did not want to be excluded from 

work. (Decl. of S. Lopez at 1–2.) Plaintiff also attests that Defendant did not wear a 

mask as required by the prison. (Id.) Further, even though there is no dispute that 

Defendant was testing in accordance with the protocol and abstained from work as 

soon as he received a positive result, California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation guidance from the time warned employees that they could have an 

active infection and transmit the disease to others despite not yet having tested 

positive for Covid-19. (See MSJ, Decl. of A. Altschuler, Ex. A (ECF No. 32-10) at 2–7.) 

The same guidance warned prison employees of the risk of exposing another person 

to Covid-19 by failing to wear a mask or practice physical distancing. (Id.) 

These facts, if true, support an inference that Defendant knew or should have 

known of the risk of infecting another person with Covid-19 even before receiving a 

positive test, and the appropriate precautions to minimize that risk. “[K]nown 

noncompliance with generally accepted guidelines for inmate health strongly 

indicates deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm.” Shank v. 

Corizon Inc., No. CV-19-04638-PHX-ROS, 2020 WL 5628014, at *4 (D. Ariz. Sept. 2, 

2020) (quoting Hernandez v. Cnty. of Monterey, 110 F. Supp. 3d 929, 943 (N.D. Cal. 

2015)); see, e.g., Ahlman v. Barnes, 445 F. Supp. 3d 671, 688–91 (C.D. Cal. 2020)

(finding that the plaintiff had established both objective and subjective indifference 

where the defendant failed to comply with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

guidance despite being put on notice that the “failure to take certain precautionary 

measures would result in an increase in the spread of infections”). 

There is also sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude it 

was more likely than not that Defendant caused Plaintiff to contract Covid-19. As 

stated above, Plaintiff and Defendant worked together in close proximity November 

Case 2:21-cv-02380-DJC-EFB Document 51 Filed 03/27/24 Page 3 of 5
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

16 through 18, 2020, and Defendant was infected with Covid-19 as of at least 

November 17, 2020. Plaintiff was moved into quarantine the same day Defendant’s 

Covid-19 test produced a positive result. (MSJ, Decl. of D. Santos (ECF No. 32-5) ¶ 2.) 

Defendant admitted in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission that “on 

November 19, 2020 all the inmates who were assigned at Mule Creek State Prison 

Facility A canteen including Plaintiff where place (sic) on quarantine due to 

[Defendant’s] positive COVID-19 result.” (Opp’n, Ex. 4 at 3–4.). During his deposition, 

Plaintiff stated that he had started exhibiting Covid-19 symptoms shortly after being 

placed in quarantine. (MSJ, Dep. of S. Lopez (ECF No. 32-13) at 8–10.) Plaintiff was 

then tested for Covid-19 on November 23, 2020, which resulted in a positive result on 

November 27, 2020. (Id. at 11; MSJ, Decl. of S. Lopez, Supervising Health Records 

Tech, Ex. B (ECF No. 32-8).) Again, this means that Plaintiff was infected with Covid-19 

as of at least November 23, 2020, five days after being exposed by Defendant on 

November 17, 2020. 

These allegations are more concrete and specific than the “generalized 

allegations” found insufficient in cases cited by Defendant. For example, in Crittenden 

v. Diaz, the plaintiff failed to allege who exposed him to Covid-19, when he tested 

positive, and how the defendants were responsible. The court stated that if the 

plaintiff had alleged “he was exposed to inmates who were known to be infected with 

the virus shortly after [a prison transfer] and the prison failed to take safety measures 

to reduce Plaintiff's risk of exposure, then it [would be] more likely than not that the 

transfer was the cause.” No. 21-05805 BLF (PR), 2021 WL 5564797, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Nov. 29, 2021). Here Plaintiff has provided those specific circumstances, namely that 

Defendant had an active Covid-19 infection while he was working in close proximity to 

Plaintiff — thereby exposing Plaintiff to Covid-19 — and that Plaintiff contracted Covid19 shortly after the exposure despite being almost immediately quarantined. 

Plaintiff’s allegations similarly go beyond a general complaint that a prison official had 

“not done enough to control the spread of COVID.” Richardson v. Allison, No. 1:21-

Case 2:21-cv-02380-DJC-EFB Document 51 Filed 03/27/24 Page 4 of 5
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

5

CV-00070-BAK, 2022 WL 1409835, at *6 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2022), report and 

recommendation adopted, No. 1:21-CV-00070-JLT-BAK, 2022 WL 2080054 (E.D. Cal. 

June 9, 2022). Rather, Plaintiff points to specific procedures that Defendant allegedly 

failed to comply with to prevent infecting Plaintiff. 

Based on Plaintiff’s attestations and other evidence in the record, there are

genuine disputes of fact with regard to whether Defendant knew or should have 

known that he had Covid-19 symptoms and risked transmitting the disease to Plaintiff,

and whether Defendant took reasonable and appropriate action in light of those 

symptoms, or instead disregarded the risk of harm he posed to Plaintiff. There are 

also sufficient facts from which a reasonable jury could find causation. Summary 

judgement is therefore not appropriate. 

Since the Magistrate Judge concluded that Defendant was entitled to summary 

judgment on the merits of his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, the 

Magistrate Judge did not have the opportunity to determine whether the Defendant is 

entitled to qualified immunity. The Court will refer the matter back to the Magistrate 

Judge to make that determination in the first instance.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 19, 2023 (ECF No. 45), 

are rejected; and

2. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to determine whether 

Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, and whether summary judgement should 

be granted on that basis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2024 

Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-02380-DJC-EFB Document 51 Filed 03/27/24 Page 5 of 5