IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-06326
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
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.
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
- IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES · No. 5:20-cv-06326
- Edward Davila
- 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.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.