A federal appeals court on Monday dismissed a lawsuit filed by the family of a prison officer who died of COVID-19 three years ago after state officials ordered the transfer of infected inmates from another facility to prison. dismissed California’s lawsuit.

Sergeant Gilbert Polanco died in August 2020, less than three months after a bus carrying more than 120 inmates from the outbreak-hit Chino prison arrived at the gates of San Quentin. rice field. According to court filings, At least 26 prisoners and a 55-year-old sergeant died as a result of a spike in infections at a Bay Area facility. The following year, his family filed a lawsuit in federal court, accusing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation of violating his constitutional right to due process by failing to protect him from “state-created dangers.”

In response, the state sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the employee should be protected by qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is a doctrine that often protects government officials, such as police and prison guards, from liability in litigation.

On Monday, two judges on a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that prison officials should be sent to facilities with no protection from prisons battling an epidemic. I knew how dangerous it would be to transport a person, so I decided that I was not entitled to that protection. Known cases of COVID-19.

“Defendants[San Quentin and a group of senior officials from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation]were aware of the risks that COVID-19 poses in prison,” the judge wrote. “Everyone was briefed on the dangers of COVID-19, how contagious the virus is, and the need for precautions to prevent its spread.”

Michael Haddad, one of the lawyers representing the Polanco family, welcomed the court’s ruling.

“States are using these legal jargons to avoid liability and try to dodge responsibility,” he told The Times.

The state attorney general’s office, which represents the prison system and prison officials in the case, referred requests for comment to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The ministry declined to comment because the lawsuit, including possible appeals, is pending.

Throughout the pandemic, crowded prisons and prisons across the country have been particularly dangerous environments, especially for medically vulnerable inmates and staff. However, some facilities, including San Quentin, have come under particular fire for failing to prevent and contain the outbreak.

In early 2021, a scathing report from the state inspector general found that authorities ignored the warnings of frontline health workers and pressured them into hasty transfers from Chino to San Quentin. Days later, the California Department of Occupational Safety and Health awarded the state’s oldest prison a fine of 420,000, the highest single fine in the state for a workplace safety violation that did not prevent the spread of COVID-19. fined $1,880.

In early 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order suspending the admission of new inmates to state prisons, and correctional health officials adopted policies against transferring inmates between facilities.

As of May of the same year, some prisons, including San Quentin, still had no confirmed cases. Other facilities, such as the California Institute for Men in Chino, have also been hit hard, with hundreds of confirmed cases. Authorities have decided to transfer more than 120 men with high-risk medical conditions to San Quentin to protect vulnerable prisoners in Chino, according to court filings.

“The transfer did not go well,” the judge wrote.

Many of the men “crammed” into the bus had not been tested for weeks. Some showed symptoms of illness during the trip, but authorities did not quarantine them upon arrival, according to court filings. Instead, all new arrivals were housed in an area with barred doors and good airflow, and were allowed to use the same showers and dining rooms as other inmates already on the facility.

Two days later, Marin County public health officials learned of the transfer and recommended quarantining the new inmates to protect the men already incarcerated. But prison officials “did not listen” to the proposal and instead ordered county public health officials to “inform them that they do not have the authority to mandate action in state prisons,” according to court filings. It says.

Within days, 25 of the transferred prisoners tested positive for COVID-19. In a matter of weeks, prisons went from zero confirmed cases of the virus to nearly 500 cases.

In June of the same year, court-appointed medical observers overseeing medical care at California prisons asked a group of experts to investigate an outbreak in San Quentin. In a subsequent memo, they criticized prisons for failing to provide masks and adequate testing, warning that the outbreak could escalate into a full-blown crisis.

By July, more than 1,300 prisoners and 184 staff members in San Quentin had tested positive for the virus. That number quickly grew to over 2,100 prisoners and 270 staff, including Polanco.

At the time of transfer, the father of the two children had several high-risk health conditions and was particularly likely to die from COVID-19. But one of his duties, according to court filings, was to drive sick prisoners to local hospitals. Before, his widow told The Times She said she often had to work two shifts, partly because of the lack of masks in prisons, as many of her colleagues quit.

That June, Polanco fell ill. By July his condition had deteriorated and he had to be hospitalized. He died in August of complications from COVID-19.

“This is a classic case of willful indifference,” the federal court said. “The defendants chose to ignore the warnings despite repeated warnings from experts that their company’s COVID-19 response was inadequate.”

Prison officials have previously said they were not indifferent because they ordered the transfer in hopes of protecting high-risk prisoners at Chino Prison. He added that guards “have the freedom to refuse to serve in prisons.” Polanco knew he had taken some risks by not quitting his job, they argued.

In Monday’s ruling, a federal court ruled that the prison could have carried out adequate examinations and screenings on inmates so that “both San Quentin personnel and transferred inmates It would have made transportation safer,” he said.

One of three federal jurists on the panel — Judge Ryan Nelson, Former President Donald Trump’s appointee disagreed, explaining why in an eight-page dissent.

“Hindsight is 20/20 and we cannot look at clearly established research through the lens of what we currently know or believe to be true,” Nelson wrote. . “The COVID-19 pandemic has been unprecedented. Therefore, in my view, the law clearly establishes a strict legal standard to overcome the defense of qualified immunity. ignoring it.”

It’s not clear if the state will continue to appeal Monday’s decision. If not, Haddad said the case would go back to the lower courts as both sides would initiate discovery proceedings for trial.

Haddad said the decision was an important step forward for the Polanco family’s legal process.

“But they are completely distraught over the loss of their husbands and fathers, and I don’t think it will be much of a comfort to them,” he said. “They want justice.”