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 two defendants, allowed service on two others, and kept the prisoner’s case stayed except for service.
The prisoner plaintiff, dismissed defendants Raul Moralez and Dr. Cook, defendants Ralph Diaz and K. Allison, and the consolidated prisoner-transfer cases.
What happened
In Re CIM-SQ Transfer Cases concerns a prisoner’s claim that transferring people with COVID-19 to San Quentin exposed him to the virus. He says he later contracted COVID-19 and seeks damages for violating his constitutional rights.
The court found a plausible claim against Ralph Diaz and K. Allison for failing to protect him from a serious safety risk. It dismissed Raul Moralez and Dr. Cook because the complaint did not make claims against them. The court also denied the prisoner’s request to present COVID-19 test results and ordered service on Diaz and Allison.
Judge Edward J. Davila ordered the case to remain stayed for all purposes except serving the complaint. The court also granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees by a separate order.
The detailed version
- IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES · No. 5:20-cv-06326
- Edward Davila
- May 22, 2025
Background
The plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, first sent the court a letter that the court treated as an attempt to bring a civil-rights case. He later filed a complaint. He alleges that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by transferring inmates, some infected with COVID-19, from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison in May 2020.
The plaintiff says he was housed in West Block Cell 2-26 in 2020, tested negative for COVID-19 in May 2020, and requested a move because of high-risk medical needs. He alleges that he contracted COVID-19 on July 20, 2020. He seeks damages.
The case was consolidated with other cases concerning the 2020 prisoner transfers. The related individual case, No. 25-cv-00954, is part of the consolidated matter. The court stated that the individual prisoner cases are stayed except for service of the complaints.
Screening and Claims
Because the plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief from government defendants, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening process 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.
A claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires allegations that a constitutional or federal-law right was violated by someone acting under state authority. Applying that standard, the court liberally construed the complaint as alleging deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The court held that the allegations stated a plausible claim against former California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation secretaries Ralph Diaz and K. Allison. The court also stated that the complaint made no claims about Raul Moralez or Dr. Cook, no claims about the plaintiff’s treatment at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, and no claims about his medical care. It therefore dismissed Moralez and Cook.
Order
The court ordered:
- Raul Moralez and Dr. Cook dismissed. - Service of the complaint to proceed on Ralph Diaz and K. Allison through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. - The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to report within 40 days which defendants would waive service and which would not or could not be reached. The California Attorney General’s Office must then file waivers for defendants who agree to waive service. - The U.S. Marshals Service to serve defendants who do not waive service. - The plaintiff to serve copies of his court communications on the defendants or their counsel and to keep the court informed of address changes. - The case to remain stayed for all purposes other than service of the complaint.
The court denied the plaintiff’s ex parte motion to present COVID-19 results to the court. The order also states that the plaintiff was granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees by a separate order. The order terminated docket entry 250 in the consolidated case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.