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 dismissed CDCR, recognized a safety claim against Broomfield, ordered service, and kept the case stayed.
The California prisoner plaintiff, CDCR, and Ronald Broomfield. The plaintiff’s claim against CDCR was dismissed, while his deliberate-indifference claim against Broomfield was found cognizable and sent for service; the case otherwise remains stayed.
What happened
In IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer alleged that officials violated his constitutional rights by transferring more than 100 prisoners, some infected with COVID-19, from California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison in May 2020.
The court screened the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening law. It dismissed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation because the Eleventh Amendment bars damages lawsuits against a state agency in federal court. The court found that the allegations plausibly stated that Ronald Broomfield was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff’s health and safety under the Eighth Amendment.
Judge Davila ordered service of the complaint on Broomfield and kept the case stayed for all purposes other than service. The plaintiff’s individual case docket was closed because the case had been consolidated with related prisoner-transfer cases, and future motions must be filed in the consolidated case using the original case number.
The detailed version
- IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES · No. 5:20-cv-06326
- Edward Davila
- May 8, 2025
Background
A California prisoner filed a civil-rights lawsuit without a lawyer. He alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights by allowing more than 100 prisoners to be transferred from the California Institution for Men (CIM) to San Quentin State Prison (SQSP) in May 2020 without testing or quarantine procedures, even though some transferred prisoners were infected with COVID-19. He sought damages.
The named defendants were former SQSP warden Ronald Broomfield and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). The case was consolidated with related cases concerning the 2020 prisoner transfer. The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary review of prisoner lawsuits against governmental entities or officials.
Rulings on the Claims
The court dismissed CDCR. It held that CDCR is immune from a damages lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it is a state agency, and a damages suit against it operates as a suit against the state. The court relied on the Eleventh Amendment, which generally bars a person from suing a state in federal court without the state’s consent. The order did not state that this dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The court concluded that, when read liberally, the allegations stated a plausible claim against Broomfield for deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s health and safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court described this as a cognizable claim; the order was a screening decision and did not resolve the claim’s ultimate merits.
Service and Case Status
The court ordered service on Broomfield through CDCR’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The clerk was directed to send CDCR the operative complaint, the order, a service-waiver form, and a summons. The order also described procedures for obtaining a waiver of service and arranging service through the U.S. Marshals Service if necessary.
The related pro se prisoner cases remain stayed except for service. The individual docket for Case No. 24-cv-05995 and the other individual dockets were closed. Any motion by the plaintiff must be filed in Case No. 5:20-cv-06326-EJD and must include the original case number, 24-cv-05995, on the left side of the heading. The order also directed the plaintiff to serve defendants or their counsel with court filings, keep the court informed of address changes, comply with deadlines, and prosecute the case. Failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Disposition
CDCR was dismissed. The plaintiff stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Broomfield. Service on Broomfield was ordered, and the case remained stayed for all purposes other than service.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.