Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 30, 2025

IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES

Judge
Edward Davila
Docket
5:20-cv-06326
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
5

Counsel97 of record
PLAINTIFF
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLPLLP4 attorneys
Nathaniel Healey Brown, Khari Jamil Tillery, Flora D. Morgan
Keker, Van Nest and Peters LLPLLP2 attorneys
Franco Emilio Muzzio, Kristin Elizabeth Hucek
Sullivan & Yaeckel Law Group, APC2 attorneys
Eric Keith Yaeckel, Katherine A. Dishongh
Law Office of Fulvio F. Cajina
Fulvio Francisco Cajina
Hadsell Stormer and Renick LLPLLP
Brian D. Olney
Hersh and Hersh
Charles Carroll Kelly , II
Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLPLLP
Dan Lewis Stormer
Hadsell Stormer Renick and Dai LLPLLP
David Clay Washington
Law Office of Matthew D. Carlson
Matthew D. Carlson
Law Office of Stanley R. Apps
Stanley R. Apps
CONSOL PLAINTIFF
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLPLLP4 attorneys
Khari Jamil Tillery, Sarah Salomon, Amrutha Dorai
Shegerian & Associates, Inc.3 attorneys
Anthony Nguyen, Carney Richard Shegerian, Erik Anthony Dos Santos
Haddad & Sherwin LLPLLP2 attorneys
Julia Sherwin, Michael J. Haddad
Keker, Van Nest and Peters LLPLLP2 attorneys
Franco Emilio Muzzio, Taylor L. Reeves
Law Office of Ben Rosenfeld
Ben T. Rosenfeld
Hersh and Hersh
Charles Carroll Kelly , II
Law Office of Matthew D. Carlson
Matthew D. Carlson
Law Office of Tyler R. Smith
Tyler Rogers Smith
Law Office of Stanley R. Apps
Stanley R. Apps
Lawyers for Justice, PCPC
Cheryl Ann Kenner
Law Office of Audrey D. Shields
Audrey Shields
Kazan, McClain & Satterley & Greenwood
Teresa Denise Allen
Hadsell Stormer and Renick LLPLLP
Brian D. Olney
Hadsell Stormer Renick and Dai LLPLLP
David Clay Washington
Law Offices of Do Kim, APLC
James Do Kim
Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLPLLP
Dan Lewis Stormer
Zavala Law Group, P.C.PC
Salomon Zavala
CONSOL DEFENDANT
California Department of Justice9 attorneys
Arthur Bernard Mark , III, Jennifer Burns, Rebecca Louise Brandel
Office of the Attorney General3 attorneys
Gurpreet Sandhu, Andrea Renee Sloan, Jean Margaret Trenbeath
Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLPLLP2 attorneys
Jaime G. Touchstone, Jamie L. Dupree
California Attorney General's Office2 attorneys
Robert Wayne Henkels, Samuel Gray Gilmor
California State Attorney General's Office2 attorneys
Juliet MacMillin Lompa, Jeffrey Thomas Fisher
Department of Justice2 attorneys
Kyle Anthony Lewis, Matthew Ross Wilson
Haddad & Sherwin LLPLLP
Julia Sherwin
Attorney General of California
Brian S. Chan
Civil Division/Correctional Law Section
Brittany Boiko
Officeof the Attorney General
Jeremy Michael Duggan
Office of the Tennessee Attorney General
Andrew Hamitlon Smith
INTERESTED PARTY
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLPLLP3 attorneys
Khari Jamil Tillery, Amrutha Dorai, Sarah Salomon
Keker, Van Nest and Peters LLPLLP2 attorneys
Franco Emilio Muzzio, Taylor L. Reeves
Law Offices of Brian A. Ford
Brian Allen Christoph Ford
Law Office of Maria Belyi
Maria Belyi
Haddad & Sherwin LLPLLP
Michael J. Haddad
DEFENDANT
California Department of Justice8 attorneys
Jennifer Burns, Zachary Glantz, Zewugeberhan Zegeye Desta
California Attorney General's Office4 attorneys
Robert Wayne Henkels, Samuel Gray Gilmor, Alexander George Vicas
Office of the Attorney General4 attorneys
Andrea Renee Sloan, Gurpreet Sandhu, Jean Margaret Trenbeath
California State Attorney General's Office3 attorneys
Juliet MacMillin Lompa, Jeffrey Thomas Fisher, Robert Lawrence Bragg
Department of Justice2 attorneys
Kyle Anthony Lewis, Matthew Ross Wilson
Attorney General of California
Brian S. Chan
Civil Division/Correctional Law Section
Brittany Boiko
Attorney General's Office
Audra Call
Office of the CA Attorney General
Isha Vazirani

Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.

Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES, Judge Davila found a plausible prisoner-safety claim, ordered service, and kept the case stayed for other purposes.

Who this affects

The prisoner plaintiff and the eight named government officials are affected. The order also directs the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the California Attorney General’s Office, and the U.S. Marshals Service to take service-related actions.

What happened

In IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES, a 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 without testing or quarantine procedures.

The court screened the complaint and concluded that the allegations plausibly described deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s safety under the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiff sued eight officials and sought damages.

Judge Edward J. Davila ordered service of the complaint on the defendants through the California prison system’s electronic-service process, or through the U.S. Marshals Service if necessary. The case will remain stayed for all purposes other than service, and the plaintiff was to receive permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES · No. 5:20-cv-06326
Judge
Edward Davila
Date
July 30, 2025

Background

The plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action concerning the May 30, 2020 transfer of more than 100 prisoners from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison. He alleged that some transferred prisoners had COVID-19 and that officials allowed the transfer without testing or quarantine procedures. He claimed that the defendants’ conduct violated his constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment and sought damages.

The case was part of a consolidated group of cases concerning the 2020 prisoner transfer. The individual case docket was closed, and the consolidated matter remained stayed except for service of the complaint. The court stated that any future motions had to be filed in the consolidated case and include the plaintiff’s original case number.

Screening and Claim

Because the plaintiff sought relief from government officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening is the court’s preliminary review of a prisoner’s complaint to determine whether it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.

The court 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 that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff’s safety. This was a screening determination that allowed the claim to proceed; the order did not determine that the defendants were liable.

Defendants and Ruling

The defendants named in the complaint were Ralph Diaz, Kathleen Allison, Ron Davis, Ronald Broomfield, A. Pachynski, J. Arnold, Dean Borders, and Joseph Bink. The order identified them as CDCR Secretary Ralph Diaz; San Quentin Warden Ron Davis; San Quentin Chief Medical Executive Dr. Alison Pachynski; Kathleen Allison, Acting Director of CDCR; Ronald Broomfield, Acting Warden of SQSP; J. Arnold, Captain at SQSP; Dean Borders, CIM Warden; and Dr. Joseph Bink, CCHCS Director.

Judge Edward J. Davila ordered service on all eight defendants through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program. The order directed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to report within 40 days which defendants would waive service. Defendants who did not waive service could be served through the U.S. Marshals Service. The order also cautioned defendants about the potential costs of refusing to waive service and instructed the plaintiff about serving copies of filings, keeping the court informed of address changes, meeting deadlines, and identifying the case in future filings.

The case remained stayed for all purposes other than service. The order also stated that the plaintiff would be granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee by separate order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.