The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from California jail officers who wanted to avoid legal action for moving prisoners with COVID-19 to San Quentin in May 2020, triggering an outbreak that resulted in the deaths of 26 captives and one watch.
Without post or dissention, the justices denied the pertains.
The move decision was later lambasted by state lawmakers as a “fiasco”, “abhorrent” and” the worst jail health clamp- up in state story”.
COVID-19 had severely affected the California Institution for Men in Chino. In May 2020, about 600 of its prisoners had died and 600 were infected.
San Quentin at the time had no known instances at the time. Prison officials at CIM made the decision to move 122 residents from Chino north to San Quentin in an effort to avoid further injury.
Within weeks, San Quentin reported 25 COVID cases among the 122 fresh arrivals. Within three days, the disease spread to 499 people.
By first September, at least 2, 100 individuals and 270 workers had tested positive.
The state is now facing four serious complaints, including those brought by deceased people’s families as well as those who survived as well as inmates and employees.
Now that the country’s claim that prison authorities had “qualified resistance” that protected them from legal action has been denied by the federal courts in California and the Supreme Court, those lawsuits may continue.
Police officials are frequently shielded from legal action by that contentious theory. The judges have ruled that police and other government representatives may be held accountable for breaking the constitution, but only if they have deliberately violated a” evidently established” right.
According to some authorities, police officers regularly have to decide whether a think being pursued has a gun in a split-second decision. In some cases, the courts protect officers from being sued for an “unreasonable epilepsy” if an agent shoots a suspect who is attempting to flee on the false pretense that the suspect was armed.
According to the families of the incarcerated prisoners, the transfer cases are very different because they were forced to do so without taking the necessary measures at the time.
Sergeant. Gilbert Polanco, the guard who died, was 55 years old and had worked at San Quentin for more than two years. He had many health conditions, including fat, diabetes and hypotension, which put him at great risk if he were to deal COVID- 19.
His jobs during the pandemic included taking sick prisoners to nearby hospitals, but according to doctors, prison officials refused to give him or the prisoners personal protective equipment.
In late June 2020, he contracted COVID- 19, and after a long hospital stay, he died in August.
In Polanco’s event, the complaint alleges he lost his life because of a” state- created risk”.
Prison authorities falsely warned Polanco about a risk he might not otherwise have faced, according to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and did not take any steps to safeguard him from the danger they had brought upon him.
In the past, the Supreme Court had ruled that captives have a right to be protected from” the unwanted and wanton punishment of pain,” including as a result of “deliberate indifference to their major medical wants.” Prison authorities can be held guilty under that common, according to the doctors for the San Quentin individuals.
California state prosecutors urged the Supreme Court to examine and , change the 9th Circuit decisions , that rejected a qualified immunity security for the prison officials.
” The specifics of these situations are certainly tragic”, they said. However, the accused authorities made an effort to protect the lives of scores of frightened inmates who were confined in a jail where the disease was prevalent during the first months of the COVID- 19 crisis, when little was known about the condition and checking supplies were constrained.
They agreed that their actions may be deemed mistaken based on hindsight, but that” no clearly established law placed them on notice that their alleged mismanagement of the COVID- 19 pandemic at San Quentin prison was unconstitutional.”
___
© 2024 Los Angeles Times
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
