IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-06326
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In IN RE CIM-SQ Transfer Cases, Judge Davila screened a prisoner’s claims, dismissed Tharratt, allowed an Eighth Amendment claim against Allison, and ordered service.
The unnamed prisoner plaintiff, Kathleen Allison, Steven Tharratt’s estate or successors, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the unnamed prison executives identified in the complaint.
What happened
In IN RE CIM-SQ Transfer Cases, a California prisoner alleged that officials violated his constitutional rights by transferring more than 100 prisoners, some infected with COVID-19, to San Quentin State Prison in May 2020. He alleged that he later contracted COVID-19 and sought damages.
The court screened the complaint under the federal law requiring review of prisoner lawsuits against government entities or employees. It found that the allegations stated a plausible claim against Kathleen Allison for deliberately disregarding a serious risk to the prisoner’s health and safety. The court said the claims could not proceed against Steven Tharratt because he had died before this case was filed, and it said claims against unnamed executives could not proceed as pleaded.
The court dismissed Tharratt, ordered service on Allison, and allowed the plaintiff to seek permission to add properly identified defendants. The case will remain stayed for purposes other than service, and the plaintiff will receive permission to proceed without paying the filing fee through a separate order. Judge Edward J. Davila issued the order.
The detailed version
- IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES · No. 5:20-cv-06326
- Edward Davila
- May 19, 2025
Background
The plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights lawsuit concerning the transfer of more than 100 prisoners from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison in May 2020. He alleged that some transferred prisoners were infected with COVID-19, that the transfer caused an outbreak at San Quentin, and that he contracted COVID-19 around May 30, 2020. He sought damages.
The complaint named the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s secretary, Kathleen Allison; its medical director, Steven Tharratt; and unnamed “CIM Medical Director/Executives.” The case was part of a group of related prisoner-transfer cases consolidated under the caption “In Re CIM-SQ Transfer Cases.” The individual case docket was closed, and the case remained stayed except for service of the complaint.
Screening and Legal Claims
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires federal courts to review prisoner complaints against governmental entities, officers, or employees. The court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state law.
Liberally construing the complaint, the court found a plausible Eighth Amendment claim against Allison for deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s health and safety needs. The court did not find that the allegations could proceed against the general, unnamed executives, although it stated that the plaintiff may later move to amend the complaint to identify additional defendants.
Rulings
The court took judicial notice of a filing in another case containing an obituary and accepted the representation that Tharratt died on August 20, 2020. Because his death occurred before this action was filed, the court dismissed Tharratt as a defendant.
The order states that:
- Defendant Tharratt is DISMISSED. - The plaintiff stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Allison. - Service on Allison must proceed through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program, with the United States Marshals Service to serve any defendant who does not waive service. - The case remains stayed for all purposes other than service.
The court also stated that the plaintiff would be granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee by separate order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.