Moreno v. Borla
- Beth Freeman
- 3:25-cv-03448
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Moreno v. Borla, Judge Freeman denied Moreno’s requests for a preliminary injunction and appointed counsel.
Albert Moreno’s requests for emergency relief and appointed counsel were denied; the order did not decide his underlying claims against Edward Borla and Jeffrey Macomber.
What happened
Albert Moreno, a California inmate representing himself, sued Warden Edward Borla and Secretary Jeffrey Macomber under a federal civil-rights law. He alleges that double-celling inmates in certain smaller cells at the Correctional Training Facility provides inadequate living space and that his grievance was ignored.
Moreno asked the court to stop officials from forcing him to share a cell and from using disciplinary measures related to his refusal to do so. The court denied the preliminary-injunction motion without prejudice because the defendants had not yet been served and the court had not completed its initial review of the complaint. Moreno may refile if the case proceeds past that review.
Judge Freeman denied Moreno’s request for appointed counsel because he had not shown the exceptional circumstances required for counsel in a civil case. The order did not decide whether Moreno’s underlying living-space claims are valid.
The detailed version
- Moreno v. Borla · No. 3:25-cv-03448
- Beth Freeman
- June 10, 2025
Background
Albert Moreno, a California inmate housed at the Correctional Training Facility, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden Edward Borla and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary Jeffrey Macomber. Moreno alleges that double-celling inmates in certain smaller cells provides inadequate living space to meet basic human needs. He also alleges that his grievance seeking compensation and single-cell housing was ignored.
Moreno filed motions for a preliminary injunction and appointment of counsel. The opinion addresses those motions, not the merits of his underlying claims.
Preliminary injunction
Moreno asked the court to order the defendants to stop forcing him to share a cell, grant him single-cell status, and stop using the disciplinary process against him for refusing to be double-celled. He also sought damages based on alleged retaliation by officers who threatened to use, or had used, disciplinary measures against him.
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 requires notice to the opposing party before issuing a preliminary injunction. The defendants had not yet been served, and the court had not yet screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court therefore denied the preliminary-injunction motion without prejudice to refiling if the case proceeds past initial screening.
Appointment of counsel
Moreno requested appointed counsel based on the complexity of the issues and his lack of legal knowledge. The court stated that a civil litigant generally has no constitutional right to counsel and that counsel may be appointed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only in exceptional circumstances. The court concluded that Moreno’s stated grounds did not distinguish him from other prisoner-plaintiffs and denied the request for lack of exceptional circumstances.
Disposition
The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice and denied the motion for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances. The order terminated Docket Nos. 13 and 14. It did not resolve the merits of Moreno’s civil-rights claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.