IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-06326
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In re CIM-SQ Transfer Cases: Judge Davila found a plausible Eighth Amendment safety claim, ordered service, and kept the prisoner’s case stayed otherwise.
The prisoner plaintiff, the four defendants listed for service, and the related prisoner cases consolidated with this matter. The plaintiff’s case remains stayed except for service.
What happened
In In re CIM-SQ Transfer Cases, a California prisoner alleged that officials transferred more than 100 inmates, including some infected with COVID-19, to San Quentin State Prison in May 2020. He alleged that officials failed to test or quarantine them and that the transfer led to infections among other prisoners.
The court screened the prisoner’s complaint and found that, when read broadly, it plausibly alleged that the named defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court ordered service on four defendants and stated that the case would remain stayed for all purposes other than service. The court also said the prisoner could proceed without paying filing fees under a separate order.
Judge Edward J. Davila issued the order on March 21, 2025. The order was not a final decision on whether the prisoner would win his claim; it allowed the case to proceed through service while maintaining the stay.
The detailed version
- IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES · No. 5:20-cv-06326
- Edward Davila
- Mar. 21, 2025
Background
The plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action in state court. He alleged that officials transferred 122 inmates from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison on May 30, 2020. According to the complaint, the sending prison had reported 509 COVID-19-positive cases and 10 deaths, while San Quentin had reported no cases. The plaintiff alleged that the transferred inmates were not quarantined or tested, were housed with other inmates, and contributed to the infection of 1,457 inmates in 29 days.
The plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages. He named CDCR Acting Secretary Ralph Diaz, San Quentin Warden Ron Davis, Ronald Broomfield, Acting Warden of San Quentin State Prison, A. Pachynski, Chief Medical Officer of San Quentin State Prison, and Dean Borders, CIM Warden.
Screening standard
Because the plaintiff sought relief from governmental officers, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule that a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must allege both a violation of a federal right and action under state authority.
Court’s analysis
The court liberally construed the plaintiff’s allegations and concluded that they stated a plausible claim for deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s safety under the Eighth Amendment. Deliberate indifference generally means that an official knowingly disregarded a serious risk to a person’s safety. The court stated that the claim was against the named defendants in their individual capacities. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of that claim.
Ruling and case status
The court ordered service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases on four defendants: Ralph Diaz, Ron Davis, Ronald Broomfield, and A. Pachynski. The order’s service directive did not list Dean Borders. The court described the case as consolidated with related cases concerning the 2020 prisoner transfer. It stated that the prisoner cases in the consolidated matter were stayed except for service, closed the individual docket for Case No. 24-cv-03082-EJD, and directed that any motions be filed in the consolidated case using the original case number as instructed.
The court ordered the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to report which defendants would waive service and established procedures for service by the United States Marshals Service on any defendant who did not waive service. The case remains stayed for all purposes other than service. The court also stated that the plaintiff was granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees by a separate order.
Disposition
The court ordered service of the complaint on the four listed defendants and kept the case stayed for all other purposes. This was a screening and service order, not a final merits judgment.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.