IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-06326
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In re CIM-SQ Transfer Cases: Judge Davila screened the prisoner’s complaint, allowed amendment, ordered service on some defendants, and denied appointed counsel.
The order affects the self-represented prisoner plaintiff, the defendants whose claims were dismissed, the ten named defendants who must be served, and the related consolidated prisoner-transfer cases that remain stayed except for service.
What happened
In IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES, a California prisoner representing himself alleged that defendants violated the Eighth Amendment and state law by transferring 122 prisoners, some possibly infected with COVID-19, to San Quentin State Prison in May 2020. He alleged that the transfer exposed him to COVID-19.
The court found plausible claims for deliberate indifference to his safety against the named defendants in their individual capacities, along with plausible state-law negligence and intentional-tort claims. It ruled that claims against the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and California Correctional Health Care Services could not proceed because of constitutional immunity. It also dismissed R. Steven Tharratt because he had died before the case was filed and did not allow the overinclusive claims against unnamed people to proceed, although the plaintiff may later seek to identify additional defendants.
Judge Edward J. Davila granted the screening request, granted the motion to amend to add requests for compensatory and punitive damages, and denied the motion for appointed counsel without prejudice. The court ordered service on ten named defendants and kept the case paused for purposes other than service.
The detailed version
- IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES · No. 5:20-cv-06326
- Edward Davila
- Dec. 20, 2024
Background
The plaintiff, a California prisoner representing himself, originally filed a civil-rights action in state court. Defendants removed the action to federal court and paid the filing fee. The plaintiff alleged that defendants violated the Eighth Amendment and state law by transferring 122 prisoners from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison in May 2020 without adequate procedures and medical protocols concerning possible COVID-19 transmission. He alleged that, as an Inmate Day Labor worker, he was exposed to COVID-19.
The case was consolidated with related prisoner-transfer cases in the Northern District of California under the caption IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES. The individual case docket, No. 24-cv-02695-EJD, was closed, and the case remained stayed for all purposes other than service.
Screening and Claims
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires a federal court to review a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental entity or officer and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.
The plaintiff named the State of California; the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; California Correctional Health Care Services; and several current or former officials and employees connected with the California Institution for Men and San Quentin State Prison. He also referred generally to unnamed medical, administrative, supervisory, and other personnel.
The court held that the allegations plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s safety against the named defendants in their individual capacities. The court also found plausible state-law general negligence and intentional-tort claims. It explained that California does not recognize a separate tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress, but treats the theory as negligence, and concluded that the allegations could support such a claim based on an alleged breach of defendants’ duty to the plaintiff.
The court ruled that the claims against the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and California Correctional Health Care Services could not proceed because the Eleventh Amendment generally prevents a person from suing a state in federal court without the state’s consent. The court also stated that state agencies are not “persons” liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The court took judicial notice of a filing and obituary indicating that Dr. R. Steven Tharratt had died on August 20, 2020. Because his death occurred before this action was filed, the court dismissed him as an improperly named defendant. The court did not allow the plaintiff’s overinclusive references to unnamed individuals to proceed, but stated that the plaintiff may later seek to amend the complaint to name additional defendants.
Motions and Disposition
The defendants’ request for screening was granted. The court dismissed defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, San Quentin State Prison, and California Correctional Health Care Services. The court also dismissed defendant Tharratt.
The plaintiff’s motion to amend was granted to add requests for compensatory and punitive damages. The plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice. The court explained that the plaintiff was able to present his claims adequately at the current stage and that the case was stayed except for service, while leaving open the possibility of a later court appointment if exceptional circumstances were found.
The court ordered service to proceed on Ralph Diaz, Ron Davis, Clarence Cryer, Alison Pachynski, Shannon Garrigan, Kathleen Allison, Ronald Broomfield, J. Arnold, Dean Borders, and Joseph Bink. The case remained stayed for all purposes other than service.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.