Jacques v. Borrego
- Jeffrey White
- 4:24-cv-01712
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Jacques v. Borrego, Judge White found a plausible Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim and ordered service on Borrego and Brito.
Michael E. Jacques and the defendants R. Borrego and M. Brito. Jacques’s claims against those defendants were found cognizable at the screening stage, and the defendants were ordered served and directed to answer.
What happened
Michael E. Jacques, a California prisoner representing herself, sued prison officials under a federal civil-rights law. The complaint alleged that Correctional Officer R. Borrego and M. Brito violated her constitutional right to safe conditions of confinement.
The court’s required prisoner screening found that the allegations stated claims that could proceed against Borrego and Brito. It ordered those defendants served and directed them to file an answer; it did not decide whether the allegations were ultimately true.
Judge Jeffrey S. White also set deadlines for a possible motion for summary judgment or another motion ending the case, responses, replies, and discovery. The order was entered on July 1, 2024.
The detailed version
- Jacques v. Borrego · No. 4:24-cv-01712
- Jeffrey White
- July 1, 2024
Background
Michael E. Jacques filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at Salinas Valley State Prison. The opinion describes Jacques as a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer. The court separately granted permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.
Screening standard
Because a prisoner sued governmental officials, the court conducted the preliminary review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That review requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a complaint must contain enough factual allegations to make the requested relief plausible and that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state authority.
Claims allowed to proceed
The court concluded that, when read liberally, Jacques’s allegations stated cognizable claims against R. Borrego and M. Brito for violating the Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment through unsafe conditions of confinement. The opinion does not resolve the ultimate merits of those claims.
Order
The court ordered Correctional Officer R. Borrego and M. Brito served at Salinas Valley State Prison through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process, with service by the United States Marshals Service if necessary. The defendants were ordered to answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court directed the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion no later than 91 days after the order was filed, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. It set deadlines for Jacques’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, required proof that the defendants provided the required summary-judgment warning, and stated that no hearing would be held unless later ordered.
The order also permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, required Jacques to serve copies of communications to the court on the defendants or their counsel, and reminded Jacques to keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court orders. The court warned that failure to prosecute could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.