IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-06326
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Robinson v. California, Judge Davila reopened the case, vacated judgment, found claims sufficient for screening, ordered service, and kept proceedings stayed.
The plaintiff’s prisoner civil-rights case was reopened and may proceed through service on the defendants for the claims the court found cognizable; the case otherwise remains stayed.
What happened
In In Re CIM-SQ Transfer Cases, the plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that officials transferred more than 100 prisoners, some infected with COVID-19, to San Quentin State Prison in May 2020 and failed to take adequate safety measures. He alleged that he became infected in June 2020.
The court had previously dismissed the case because the plaintiff had not submitted an application to proceed without paying the full filing fee or paid the correct fee. After he filed a motion to reopen with an application, the court granted the motion, vacated the prior judgment, and determined that his allegations stated possible claims involving deliberate indifference to health and safety, California’s Bane Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. The court ordered service of the complaint, but the case remains stayed for purposes other than service.
Judge Edward J. Davila ruled that the case could proceed past initial prisoner screening, without deciding whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail. The court directed service on the listed defendants and granted the plaintiff permission to proceed without paying the full filing fee by a separate order.
The detailed version
- IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES · No. 5:20-cv-06326
- Edward Davila
- Aug. 20, 2025
Background
The order concerns a consolidated matter involving prisoner cases related to the May 2020 transfer of prisoners from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison. The plaintiff’s individual case is identified in the order as Robinson v. California, No. 24-cv-03596-EJD. He filed the complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional or federal rights by people acting under state law.
The plaintiff alleged that defendants transferred more than 100 prisoners, some of whom had COVID-19, and failed to take adequate precautions before, during, and after the transfer. The alleged failures included not testing or screening prisoners at appropriate times, not enforcing distancing on transfer buses, not testing and isolating prisoners after arrival, not following public-health recommendations, lacking adequate protective equipment and masks, and refusing offers of free COVID-19 testing. The plaintiff alleged that he became infected in June 2020.
The complaint named the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Estate of Robert S. Tharratt, Ralph Diaz, Ronald Davis, Ronald Broomfield, Clarence Cryer, Alison Pachynski, Shannon Garrigan, Louie Escobell, Muhammad Farooq, Kirk Torres, and unnamed defendants. The individual defendants were sued in their individual capacities.
Claims and screening
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires a preliminary review of a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from a governmental entity or officer. At this stage, the court must identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule that allegations by a person without a lawyer must be read liberally.
The court held that the allegations stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Diaz, the Estate of Tharratt, Davis, Broomfield, Cryer, Pachynski, Garrigan, Escobell, Farooq, and Torres. The claims allege deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s health and safety needs, either directly or through supervisory liability.
The court also held that the complaint stated a cognizable claim under California Civil Code section 52.1, known as the Bane Act, against those same defendants. The court explained that the Act addresses interference with rights secured by federal or state law through threats, intimidation, or coercion, and that the complaint could be read to allege reckless disregard for the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
The court further held that the complaint stated a cognizable Rehabilitation Act claim against the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and San Quentin State Prison. The plaintiff alleged that his health conditions constituted disabilities and that defendants failed to provide accommodations related to the COVID-19 outbreak, including additional protective equipment, sanitation, environmental changes, single-cell housing, and enforcement of distancing and masking measures. The court stated that race and age are not disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act, but it concluded that the alleged health conditions could qualify as disabilities at this stage.
Ruling and case status
Judge Edward J. Davila granted the plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case and directed the Clerk to vacate the prior judgment and reopen the case. The court ordered service on the State of California through the United States Marshals Service and directed service on other listed defendants through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program or, when necessary, through the Marshals Service.
The court stated that service would proceed, but the consolidated prisoner cases remain stayed for all purposes other than service. The individual docket for the plaintiff’s case was closed, and the plaintiff was instructed to file future motions in the consolidated case while including his original case number. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of the claims or whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages or other requested relief.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.