IN RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES
5:20-cv-06326
N.D. Cal.Apr 14, 2025Background
- The plaintiff, a California prisoner, filed a civil rights action alleging constitutional violations after over 100 inmates, some infected with COVID-19, were transferred from California Institution for Men (CIM) to San Quentin State Prison (SQSP) in May 2020.
- The transferred inmates were not properly tested or screened for COVID-19, nor were adequate preventative measures (distancing, PPE, isolation) appropriately implemented before, during, or after the transfer.
- The plaintiff contracted COVID-19 following the transfer, amidst an outbreak at SQSP, which then saw a sharp rise in cases and multiple inmate deaths.
- Plaintiff named several individual prison officials and medical staff, claiming deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment, violation of the Bane Act (California Civil Code § 52.1), and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- The court is screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); several related cases have been consolidated under a master docket, with this case proceeding for service only and otherwise stayed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference | Defendants knowingly exposed plaintiff to substantial COVID-19 risk. | (Not stated at this stage; screening only) | Allegations state a cognizable claim. |
| Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1) | Defendants acted with reckless disregard for constitutional rights. | (Not stated at this stage; screening only) | Allegations state a cognizable claim. |
| Negligent infliction of emotional distress | Defendants breached duty of care toward plaintiff, causing distress. | (Not stated at this stage; screening only) | Allegations state a cognizable claim. |
| Dismissal of State/Institutional Defendants | (Not directly argued; claims made against these entities) | State, CDCR, SQSP are not proper defendants per 42 U.S.C. § 1983 | Dismissed from the case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) (pro se pleadings must be liberally construed)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007) (complaint must state plausible claim for relief)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (elements for §1983 claims under color of state law)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard under Eighth Amendment)
- Reese v. County of Sacramento, 888 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2018) (reckless disregard as specific intent under Bane Act)
- Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 6 Cal. 4th 965 (1993) (negligent infliction is not an independent tort in California)
- Lawson v. Superior Ct., 180 Cal. App. 4th 1372 (2010) (special relationship of jailer/prisoner creating duty of care)