IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES

Background

The plaintiff, a California prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights action concerning a prison transfer from California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison. He alleged that the transfer led to his contracting COVID-19 and sought damages. The complaint stated that he tested positive on July 21, 2021, but an attached exhibit showed a positive result on July 24, 2020, for a test administered on July 21, 2020.

The case was consolidated with other cases concerning the 2020 prisoner transfer. The court explained that individual prisoner cases in the consolidated matter are stayed except for service of the complaints. The court therefore screened this complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires federal courts to review prisoner complaints against governmental entities or employees and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek damages from an immune defendant.

Defendants and Claims

The plaintiff named the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR); J. Clark Kelso, the prison receiver; Ralph Diaz, the retired CDCR secretary; Ronald Davis, the San Quentin State Prison warden; Ronald Broomfield, the acting San Quentin State Prison warden; and Clarence Cryer, the chief executive officer for healthcare at San Quentin State Prison.

The court stated 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. Construing the plaintiff’s allegations liberally, the court found a plausible Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s health and safety against Diaz, Davis, Broomfield, and Cryer.

Rulings

The court dismissed CDCR because it is a state agency and the Eleventh Amendment bars damages suits against a state in federal court without the state’s consent. The court also dismissed Clark Kelso based on quasi-judicial immunity.

The court stated that the plaintiff had a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Diaz, Davis, Broomfield, and Cryer. It ordered service of the complaint on those four defendants through the court’s service process, including an opportunity to waive service.

The court ordered that the case remain stayed for all purposes other than service. It also explained that the individual docket for Case No. 24-cv-04745 and the other individual dockets had been closed because the cases were part of the consolidated matter. Any motions by the plaintiff must be filed in Case No. 5:20-cv-06326-EJD and include the original case number.