Albert Moreno v. Edward Borla, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedOctober 30, 2025
Docket3:25-cv-03448
StatusUnknown

This text of Albert Moreno v. Edward Borla, et al. (Albert Moreno v. Edward Borla, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Albert Moreno v. Edward Borla, et al., (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALBERT MORENO, Case No. 25-cv-03448-TLT

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE, REQUIRING 9 v. RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 10 EDWARD BORLA, et al., INJUNCTION 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff, a prisoner at Correctional Training Facility (CTF), filed a pro se civil rights 14 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s 15 First Amended Complaint (FAC) is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 16 Dkt. No. 27. For the reasons stated below, the FAC is ordered served on defendants Borla and 17 Macomber, who are also directed to respond to plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.1 18 DISCUSSION 19 A. Standard of Review 20 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 21 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 23 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 24 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 25 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d 26

27 1 At least seven other cases raising similar or identical claims have been related to plaintiff’s case. 1 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 3 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 4 necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 5 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 6 “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more 7 than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 8 do. . .. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 9 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 10 proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. All or part 11 of a complaint filed by a prisoner may be dismissed sua sponte if the prisoner’s claims lack an 12 arguable basis in either law or in fact. 13 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 14 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 15 alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 16 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 17 If a court dismisses a complaint for failure to state a claim, it should “freely give 18 leave” to amend “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A court has discretion to 19 deny leave to amend due to “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, 20 repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendment previously allowed undue prejudice to the 21 opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” 22 Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008). 23 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 24 The FAC names the CTF Warden Edward Borla, the Secretary of the California 25 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Jefferey Macomber, and the California 26 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) as defendants and alleges that defendants 27 have violated his Eighth Amendment rights by housing him in an unconstitutionally small cell 1 space, or only 9.5 square feet per prisoner, which violates CDCR’s guidelines and the 2 Constitution. He alleges prisoners at CTF have been double-celled in certain North Yard buildings 3 since 2011 although the rooms in these buildings were not built to be double cells. 4 Plaintiff seeks damages. 5 C. Screening Plaintiff’s Complaint 6 Defendant CDCR is dismissed as a defendant because it is an agency of the state and 7 therefore has Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit for damages. 8 While the Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, it does require that prisoners 9 have the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 10 (1981). “[T]he Eighth Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency 11 that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Id. at 346 (internal quotation marks omitted). 12 Liberally construed, plaintiff has stated an Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Borla and 13 Macomber for inadequate living space. 14 D. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 15 Plaintiff has re-filed his motion for a preliminary injunction a third time. Dkt. No. 28. The 16 Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) restricts the power of the court to grant 17 prospective relief in any action involving prison conditions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a); Oluwa v. 18 Gomez, 133 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir. 1998). Section 3626(a)(2) applies specifically to 19 preliminary injunctive relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). In civil actions with respect to prison 20 conditions it permits the court to enter a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction “to 21 the extent otherwise authorized by law” but also requires that such an order “must be narrowly 22 drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary 23 relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.” Id. The court must give 24 “substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice 25 system caused by the preliminary relief.” Id. “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must 26 establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 27 absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is 1 Defendants shall respond to plaintiff’s motion on the same date their answer is due. 2 Plaintiff may file a reply within 28 days of their response. 3 CONCLUSION 4 1. Defendant CDCR is dismissed. 5 2.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rhodes v. Chapman
452 U.S. 337 (Supreme Court, 1981)
West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Earnest Woods, II v. Tom Carey
684 F.3d 934 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publishing
512 F.3d 522 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Juan Albino v. Lee Baca
747 F.3d 1162 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Wyatt v. Terhune
315 F.3d 1108 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Albert Moreno v. Edward Borla, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-moreno-v-edward-borla-et-al-cand-2025.