In re CIM-SQ Transfer Cases

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California screens a pro se prisoner’s civil rights complaint concerning the May 2020 transfer of inmates from California Institution for Men to San Quentin State Prison during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court finds plausible Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against several defendants, dismisses claims against Governor Gavin Newsom, Federal Receiver J. Clark Kelso, and Dr. R. Steven Tharratt, and orders service on the remaining defendants. The case remains stayed for purposes other than service.

Holdings

1. Liberally construed, the allegations stated a plausible claim for deliberate indifference to plaintiff's safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment against the majority of the named defendants in their individual capacities.
2. The complaint did not state a plausible claim against Governor Newsom because it did not plausibly allege that he was involved in the decisions surrounding the transfer; the claim was dismissed without prejudice.
3. J. Clark Kelso was dismissed on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity.
4. Dr. Steven Tharratt was dismissed because he died before the action was filed and therefore was not an appropriately named defendant at the onset of the litigation.
5. The court ordered service through the CDCR e-service program, with USMS service to follow for defendants who did not waive service, and kept the consolidated case stayed for all purposes other than service.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a plausible Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the named prison and correctional officials.
2. Whether the complaint stated a plausible claim against Governor Gavin Newsom based on his alleged connection to the prisoner transfer.
3. Whether J. Clark Kelso was protected by quasi-judicial immunity.
4. Whether Dr. Steven Tharratt could properly be named as a defendant when he died before the action was filed.
5. Whether service should proceed on the remaining defendants while the consolidated cases remained stayed for other purposes.

Disposition

other