IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES

Background

A California prisoner filed a complaint without a lawyer alleging that defendants violated the Eighth Amendment and the California Constitution by transferring more than 100 prisoners from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison in May 2020. The complaint alleged that some transferred prisoners were infected with COVID-19, the transfer was rushed, prisoners were not adequately tested or quarantined, symptomatic prisoners were allowed to arrive at San Quentin, and prisoners were not adequately spaced on the buses.

The plaintiff alleged that he and his cellmate were tested on June 23, 2020; the plaintiff tested negative and his cellmate tested positive. He requested a cell move from custody and medical staff but was denied. He continued to test negative, although he alleged that San Quentin healthcare staff refused to perform blood tests to determine whether he had contracted COVID-19. He sought compensatory and punitive damages.

The case had been consolidated with related cases concerning the 2020 transfer. The individual case docket was closed, and the consolidated prisoner cases were stayed except for serving the complaints. The court considered this complaint under the required preliminary screening of prisoner complaints seeking relief from government entities or officials under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The plaintiff was granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees by a separate order.

Claims and Screening Analysis

The court liberally construed the complaint and concluded that the allegations plausibly stated a claim for deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s safety under the Eighth Amendment against most of the named defendants in their individual capacities. The court explained that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state law.

The court concluded that the claims against Governor Gavin Newsom could not proceed because the complaint did not plausibly allege that he was involved in the transfer decisions. The court dismissed Newsom without prejudice.

The court dismissed J. Clark Kelso based on quasi-judicial immunity. It also dismissed R. Steven Tharratt because the court understood that he had died before the complaint was filed and therefore was not properly named as a defendant at the beginning of the case. The court stated that the plaintiff could later seek permission to amend the complaint to identify additional unnamed defendants.

Order

The court ordered that Tharratt, Kelso, and Newsom be dismissed. It ordered service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program on Ronald Broomfield, Ralph Diaz, Clarence Cryer, Shannon Garrigan, Kathleen Allison, Joseph Bink, Dean Borders, and Louie Escobell. The order described procedures for obtaining waivers of service and, when necessary, arranging service through the United States Marshals Service.

The case will remain stayed for all purposes other than service of the complaint. The opinion does not separately explain the disposition of the plaintiff’s California constitutional claim.