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 granted screening, denied appointed counsel, dismissed four defendants, ordered service on ten others, and kept the case stayed.
The plaintiff, the four dismissed defendants or entities, and the ten individual defendants who remain subject to service and further proceedings.
What happened
In In re CIM-SQ Transfer Cases, a California prisoner alleged that officials violated his Eighth Amendment and state-law rights by transferring 122 prisoners, some possibly infected with COVID-19, from California Institution for Men to San Quentin in May 2020. He represented himself and sought damages.
The court found plausible claims against the named individual defendants for deliberately disregarding risks to his safety and for negligence and intentional torts under state law. It ruled that claims could not proceed against the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or California Correctional Health Care Services, and that claims against R. Steven Tharratt could not proceed because he had died before the case was filed.
Judge Davila granted the request to screen the complaint, denied the motion for appointment of counsel, dismissed CDCR, San Quentin State Prison, CCHCS, and Tharratt, and ordered service on ten other defendants. The case remains stayed for purposes other than serving the complaint.
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, originally filed a civil-rights action in state court. He 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. He sought compensatory and punitive damages.
The defendants removed the case to federal court and paid the filing fee. The case was consolidated with related prisoner-transfer cases. Individual cases in the consolidated matter were closed on their separate dockets and stayed except for service. The court directed that motions concerning this case be filed in Case No. 5:20-cv-06326-EJD while identifying the plaintiff’s original case number, 24-cv-02488-EJD.
Screening standard
Because the plaintiff is a prisoner suing governmental entities and officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court was required to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally, while still requiring enough facts to make a claim plausible. For a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff had to allege a violation of a constitutional or federal-law right by a person acting under state authority.
Claims allowed to proceed
The court held that, when read liberally, the allegations stated a plausible 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 claims for general negligence and intentional torts. It explained that California law does not recognize an independent tort called negligent infliction of emotional distress; instead, such allegations are treated as negligence when the defendant owed a duty, breached another legal duty, and caused the emotional distress. The court found that the alleged prisoner-jailer relationship could establish a duty of care and that the plaintiff alleged his emotional distress arose from exposure to COVID-19.
Claims and defendants excluded
The court ruled that the claims could not proceed against the State of California, CDCR, or CCHCS because the Eleventh Amendment generally bars suits against a state and extends that protection to state agencies. It also stated that state agencies such as CDCR are not “persons” subject to liability under § 1983.
The court also ruled that claims could not proceed against Dr. R. Steven Tharratt because, based on a filing and obituary in another case, he had died on August 20, 2020, before this action was filed. The court stated that a dead person cannot be named as a defendant in his own right in a federal lawsuit. The court further ruled that the overinclusive references to unnamed individuals could not proceed, while allowing the plaintiff to later seek permission to amend the complaint to identify additional defendants.
Order
The court granted the defendants’ request to screen the complaint and denied the motion for appointment of counsel. It dismissed CDCR, San Quentin State Prison, CCHCS, and Tharratt. The order directed service through CDCR’s electronic-service program on Ralph Diaz, Ron Davis, Clarence Cryer, Alison Pachynski, Shannon Garrigan, Kathleen Allison, Ronald Broomfield, J. Arnold, Dean Borders, and Joseph Bink.
The order established procedures for CDCR to report which defendants would waive service and for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve defendants who did not waive service. It also required the plaintiff to serve copies of his communications on defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court deadlines. The case remains stayed for all purposes other than service of the complaint.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.