IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-06326
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES, Judge Davila screened a prisoner’s COVID-19 civil-rights complaint, dismissing two defendants, allowing claims against others, and ordering service.
The prisoner plaintiff, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, J. Clark Kelso, and the ten remaining individual defendants named in the complaint are affected. The claims against the remaining defendants proceed to service, while the case otherwise remains stayed.
What happened
In IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES, a California prisoner alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights by transferring inmates, some infected with COVID-19, from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison in May 2020.
The prisoner alleged that he contracted COVID-19 because of deliberate indifference and unreasonable protocols. The court dismissed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and J. Clark Kelso, but found that the allegations stated a plausible claim that the other named defendants were deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s safety.
Judge Edward J. Davila granted a motion to amend the lawsuit’s title and ordered service on the remaining defendants. The case will stay paused for purposes other than serving the complaint.
The detailed version
- IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES · No. 5:20-cv-06326
- Edward Davila
- Feb. 13, 2025
Background
The plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action concerning inmate transfers from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison in May 2020. The plaintiff alleged that some transferred inmates were infected with COVID-19 and that defendants’ deliberate indifference and unreasonable protocols caused the plaintiff to contract COVID-19.
The case was consolidated with related cases in the Northern District of California. The individual case docket was closed, and the case remained stayed except for service of the complaint. The court reviewed the complaint under the federal statute requiring preliminary screening of prisoner lawsuits against governmental entities or employees.
Claims and Screening Analysis
The plaintiff named the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; Ralph Diaz; Ronald Davis; Ronald Broomfield; Lawrence Cryer; Allison Pachynski; Shannon Garrigan; Mona Houston; Kirk Torres; Louis Escobell; Muhammed Farooq; and J. Clark Kelso.
The court explained that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires allegations that a constitutional or federal legal right was violated by a person acting under state authority. The court concluded that the complaint, read liberally, stated a plausible Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s safety against the remaining defendants in their individual capacities.
The court held that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was immune from § 1983 damages claims because it is a state agency, and dismissed it. The court also held that J. Clark Kelso had quasi-judicial immunity and dismissed him.
Rulings and Case Status
The court granted the plaintiff’s motion to amend the title of the lawsuit. It ordered service on Ralph Diaz, Ronald Davis, Ronald Broomfield, Lawrence Cryer, Allison Pachynski, Shannon Garrigan, Mona Houston, Kirk Torres, Louis Escobell, and Muhammed Farooq through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases.
The order directed the clerk to send the operative complaint, the order, a service-waiver form, and summonses to the department. It also set procedures for reporting whether defendants waive service and for using the United States Marshals Service when service is not waived or cannot be completed through the program.
The case will remain stayed for all purposes other than service of the complaint. The order also states that the plaintiff must serve copies of communications on defendants or their counsel and must keep the court informed of address changes. The court warned that failure to prosecute could lead to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.