1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTHONY EMMANUEL ROBERTS, Case No. 26-cv-00855-TLT
8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE v. 9
10 EDWARD BORLA, et al., Defendants. 11
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 case was related to 25-cv-02820-TLT, McKenzie v. Borla, 15 which raises similar or identical allegations, and which was set as a bellwether case. The 16 complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff 17 will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis by separate order. For the reasons stated below, 18 the complaint is ordered served on defendants Borla, Macomber, and Freeman. 19 DISCUSSION 20 A. Standard of Review 21 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 22 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 24 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 26 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d 27 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). 1 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 2 necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 3 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 4 “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more 5 than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 6 do. . .. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 7 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 8 proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. All or part 9 of a complaint filed by a prisoner may be dismissed sua sponte if the prisoner’s claims lack an 10 arguable basis in either law or in fact. 11 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 12 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 13 alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 14 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 15 If a court dismisses a complaint for failure to state a claim, it should “freely give 16 leave” to amend “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A court has discretion to 17 deny leave to amend due to “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, 18 repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendment previously allowed undue prejudice to the 19 opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” 20 Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008). 21 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 22 Plaintiff names the CTF Warden Edward Borla, the Associate Wardens C. Freeman and N. 23 Gonzalez, and the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 24 (CDCR) Jefferey Macomber as defendants, as well as correctional staff H. Vera, Steven Magana, 25 D. Moya, and A. Levya. He alleges that defendants have violated his Eighth Amendment rights by 26 housing him in an unconstitutionally small double cell with another prisoner since November 27 2014. He alleges his cell has only 19 square feet of unencumbered space, or only 9.5 square feet 1 have been double-celled in certain North Yard buildings since 2011 although the rooms in these 2 buildings were not built to be double cells. 3 Plaintiff seeks damages. 4 C. Analysis 5 While the Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, it does require that prisoners 6 have the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 7 (1981). “[T]he Eighth Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency 8 that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Id. at 346 (internal quotation marks omitted). 9 Liberally construed, plaintiff has stated an Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Borla and 10 Macomber for inadequate living space. Because plaintiff has made no specific allegations about 11 how the other named defendants have violated his constitutional rights, the other defendants are 12 dismissed. 13 CONCLUSION 14 1. Plaintiff has stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Borla 15 and Macomber. 16 2. Defendants Freeman, Gonzalez, Vera, Magana, Moya, and Levya are dismissed. 17 3. The Court ORDERS that service on the following defendants shall proceed under 18 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) e-service program for 19 civil rights cases from prisoners in the CDCR’s custody: 20 a. Edward Borla, Warden of CTF 21 b. Jefferey Macomber, Secretary of CDCR 22 In accordance with the program, the Clerk is directed to serve on the CDCR via email the 23 following documents: the operative complaint (Dkt. No. 1), this Order of Service, a CDCR Report 24 of E-Service Waiver form, and a summons. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on the 25 plaintiff. 26 No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on the CDCR, the CDCR shall 27 provide the court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court which 1 the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) and which defendant(s) decline to waive service or 2 could not be reached. The CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service 3 Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 days, shall file with the Court 4 a waiver of service of process for the defendant(s) who are waiving service. 5 Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the Clerk shall prepare for each 6 defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver a 7 USM-285 Form. The Clerk shall provide to the USMS the completed USM-285 forms and copies 8 of this order, the summons, and the operative complaint for service upon each defendant who has 9 not waived service. The Clerk also shall provide the USMS a copy of the CDCR Report of E- 10 Service Waiver. 11 4. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTHONY EMMANUEL ROBERTS, Case No. 26-cv-00855-TLT
8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE v. 9
10 EDWARD BORLA, et al., Defendants. 11
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 case was related to 25-cv-02820-TLT, McKenzie v. Borla, 15 which raises similar or identical allegations, and which was set as a bellwether case. The 16 complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff 17 will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis by separate order. For the reasons stated below, 18 the complaint is ordered served on defendants Borla, Macomber, and Freeman. 19 DISCUSSION 20 A. Standard of Review 21 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 22 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 24 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 26 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d 27 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). 1 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 2 necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 3 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 4 “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more 5 than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 6 do. . .. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 7 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 8 proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. All or part 9 of a complaint filed by a prisoner may be dismissed sua sponte if the prisoner’s claims lack an 10 arguable basis in either law or in fact. 11 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 12 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 13 alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 14 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 15 If a court dismisses a complaint for failure to state a claim, it should “freely give 16 leave” to amend “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A court has discretion to 17 deny leave to amend due to “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, 18 repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendment previously allowed undue prejudice to the 19 opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” 20 Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008). 21 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 22 Plaintiff names the CTF Warden Edward Borla, the Associate Wardens C. Freeman and N. 23 Gonzalez, and the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 24 (CDCR) Jefferey Macomber as defendants, as well as correctional staff H. Vera, Steven Magana, 25 D. Moya, and A. Levya. He alleges that defendants have violated his Eighth Amendment rights by 26 housing him in an unconstitutionally small double cell with another prisoner since November 27 2014. He alleges his cell has only 19 square feet of unencumbered space, or only 9.5 square feet 1 have been double-celled in certain North Yard buildings since 2011 although the rooms in these 2 buildings were not built to be double cells. 3 Plaintiff seeks damages. 4 C. Analysis 5 While the Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, it does require that prisoners 6 have the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 7 (1981). “[T]he Eighth Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency 8 that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Id. at 346 (internal quotation marks omitted). 9 Liberally construed, plaintiff has stated an Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Borla and 10 Macomber for inadequate living space. Because plaintiff has made no specific allegations about 11 how the other named defendants have violated his constitutional rights, the other defendants are 12 dismissed. 13 CONCLUSION 14 1. Plaintiff has stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Borla 15 and Macomber. 16 2. Defendants Freeman, Gonzalez, Vera, Magana, Moya, and Levya are dismissed. 17 3. The Court ORDERS that service on the following defendants shall proceed under 18 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) e-service program for 19 civil rights cases from prisoners in the CDCR’s custody: 20 a. Edward Borla, Warden of CTF 21 b. Jefferey Macomber, Secretary of CDCR 22 In accordance with the program, the Clerk is directed to serve on the CDCR via email the 23 following documents: the operative complaint (Dkt. No. 1), this Order of Service, a CDCR Report 24 of E-Service Waiver form, and a summons. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on the 25 plaintiff. 26 No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on the CDCR, the CDCR shall 27 provide the court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court which 1 the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) and which defendant(s) decline to waive service or 2 could not be reached. The CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service 3 Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 days, shall file with the Court 4 a waiver of service of process for the defendant(s) who are waiving service. 5 Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the Clerk shall prepare for each 6 defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver a 7 USM-285 Form. The Clerk shall provide to the USMS the completed USM-285 forms and copies 8 of this order, the summons, and the operative complaint for service upon each defendant who has 9 not waived service. The Clerk also shall provide the USMS a copy of the CDCR Report of E- 10 Service Waiver. 11 4. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 requires defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and 13 complaint. If service is waived, this action will proceed as if defendants had been served on the 14 date that the waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(ii), defendants will not be 15 required to serve and file an answer before sixty (60) days from the date on which the CDCR 16 provides a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver to the California Attorney General’s 17 Office. (This allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of 18 summons is necessary.) If defendants have not waived service and have instead been served by 19 the USMS, then defendants shall serve and file an answer within twenty-one (21) days after being 20 served with the summons and complaint. 21 5. Defendants shall answer the complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of 22 Civil Procedure. 23 6. Further briefing and discovery are currently stayed while the bellwether case, 25- 24 cv-02820-TLT, McKenzie v. Borla, proceeds. See Dkt. No. 14. 25 7. All communications by plaintiff with the Court must be served on defendants or 26 their counsel, once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to them. 27 8. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court ] Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11, a party proceeding pro se whose address changes 2 || while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of address specifying the new 3 address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss without prejudice a complaint when: (1) mail 4 || directed to the pro se party by the Court has been returned to the Court as not deliverable, and (2) 5 || the Court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written communication from the pro se 6 || party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b). 7 10. Upona showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be 8 || granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: June 29, 2026 1] %L ( y ; Leen a A MPSON 13 United States District Judge
15 16
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28