Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 20, 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
4
Civil ProcedureCivil RightsADA / Disability
In one sentence

In re CIM-SQ Transfer Cases: Judge Davila granted a motion to amend, adding claims and defendants and ordering service while keeping the case stayed.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and the additional defendants named in the amended complaint, including the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, San Quentin State Prison, the Estate of Robert S. Tharratt, and the listed individual defendants. The order also directs actions by the clerk, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the California Attorney General’s Office, and the United States Marshal.

What happened

In In re CIM-SQ Transfer Cases, the plaintiff asked to amend the complaint to add claims and defendants. Judge Davila found that the allegations could plausibly support the proposed claims.

The added claims include an Eighth Amendment claim alleging deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s safety, California claims under the Bane Act and for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and a Rehabilitation Act claim concerning alleged failures to accommodate asthma, diabetes, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Judge Davila granted the motion to amend. The court ordered service on the additional defendants through the United States Marshal and a California prison-agency electronic-service program, and kept the case stayed for all purposes other than serving the complaint.

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
Aug. 20, 2025

Background

The plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to add claims and additional defendants. The court stated that, when liberally construed, the allegations plausibly alleged deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment, a California Bane Act claim, and negligent infliction of emotional distress under state law.

The proposed individual and estate defendants for those claims were the Estate of Robert S. Tharratt, Ronald Davis, Ronald Broomfield, Clarence Cryer, Alison Pachynski, Shannon Garrigan, Louie Escobell, Muhammad Farooq, and Kirk Torres.

The court also found that the plaintiff stated a cognizable claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and San Quentin State Prison. The plaintiff alleged that he has asthma, diabetes, and post-traumatic stress disorder and that the defendants failed to accommodate his disabilities and placed him at greater risk than people without disabilities.

Ruling

The court granted the motion to amend. It ordered service by the United States Marshal and directed that service on the additional defendants proceed through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for civil-rights cases brought by prisoners in the agency’s custody.

The order requires the agency to report within 40 days after receiving the order by email which defendants will waive service and which will not or could not be reached. The California Attorney General’s Office must then file waivers for defendants who agree to waive service. The clerk must prepare service documents for defendants who do not waive service, and the United States Marshal will receive a copy of the service report.

The court also directed the plaintiff to serve court communications on defense counsel, to keep the court informed of address changes, and to follow filing deadlines and other orders. The case will remain stayed for all purposes other than service of the complaint. The order terminated docket entry 278 in case number 20-cv-06326-EJD.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.