In re CIM-SQ Transfer Cases; Vines v. Broomfield et al.
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-06326
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Vines v. Broomfield, Judge Davila found several prisoner claims legally sufficient at screening, ordered service, and kept the case stayed for other purposes.
Vines’s claims may proceed past initial prisoner screening against the specified individual defendants and against the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and San Quentin State Prison on the specified claims. The defendants must participate in the ordered service process, while the case remains stayed for purposes other than service.
What happened
In In re CIM-SQ Transfer Cases; Vines v. Broomfield et al., a California prisoner alleged that officials violated his rights by transferring 122 prisoners, some infected with COVID-19, to San Quentin State Prison in 2020. He alleged that the transfer caused him to contract COVID-19 and put him at increased risk because of his medical conditions.
The court found legally sufficient claims under the Eighth Amendment, California’s Bane Act, and state law concerning negligent infliction of emotional distress against several individual defendants. It also found a legally sufficient Rehabilitation Act claim against the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and San Quentin State Prison.
Judge Edward J. Davila ordered service of the complaint on the defendants, stated that the plaintiff could proceed without paying filing fees by a separate order, and kept the case stayed for all purposes other than service.
The detailed version
- In re CIM-SQ Transfer Cases; Vines v. Broomfield et al. · No. 5:20-cv-06326
- Edward Davila
- Dec. 22, 2025
Background
Vines, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action concerning the May 2020 transfer of 122 prisoners from the California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison. He alleged that some transferred prisoners had COVID-19, that the transfer caused him to contract COVID-19, and that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. He also alleged that he was at high medical risk because of asthma, blood clots, and deep-vein thrombosis, and that the defendants exposed him to a greater risk of COVID-19 than nondisabled prisoners.
The action was consolidated with related cases concerning the 2020 transfer. The court stated that the individual prisoner cases in the consolidated matter were stayed except for service. The individual docket for Case No. 25-cv-07879-EJD and the other individual dockets had been closed; filings concerning this case were to be made in Case No. 5:20-cv-06326-EJD while including the original case number.
Screening standard
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires screening of prisoner suits against governmental entities or officials. At this stage, the court had to identify claims that could proceed or dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.
Claims found legally sufficient
The court found that the allegations concerning the transfer stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to health and safety needs against Estate of Robert S. Tharratt, Ronald Davis, Ronald Broomfield, Clarence Cryer, Alison Pachynski, Shannon Garrigan, Louie Escobell, Muhammad Farooq, Kirk Torres, Katherine Allison, and Ralph Diaz. The court did not find that claim cognizable against the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or San Quentin State Prison.
The court also found a cognizable claim under California Civil Code section 52.1, known as the Bane Act, against the listed individual defendants. The court concluded that the allegations, read liberally, asserted that the defendants acted with reckless disregard for Vines’s constitutional rights.
The court found 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. It also found a cognizable state-law claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against the listed individual defendants. The court explained that, under California law, this claim depends on a breach of another legal duty and that prisoners and jailers have a special relationship involving a duty of care.
Order
The court ordered service on the State of California through the United States Marshals Service. It ordered service on the other defendants through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program, with the United States Marshals Service to serve defendants who did not waive service. The order included procedures for reporting service waivers and warned defendants about potential service costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
The court stated that Vines could proceed without paying filing fees by a separate order. It ordered that the case remain stayed for all purposes other than service. The order did not decide whether Vines ultimately would prevail on any claim.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.