Moreno v. Borla

Background

Albert Moreno, a state inmate confined at the Correctional Training Facility, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden Edward Borla, CDCR Secretary Jeffery Macomber, and the CDCR. He alleged that, since January 1, 2022, he had been housed in a cell with “19 square feet of unencumbered space.” He also alleged that several Correctional Training Facility buildings had double-celled inmates since February 28, 2011, even though the North Yard was not designed for double-celling.

Moreno claimed that these conditions violated the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment. He also alleged that he had a lung disease that made him more prone to pneumonia and that double-celling exposed him to a risk of sickness. He sought damages.

Screening and Claims

Because Moreno sought relief from governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires allegations that a federal right was violated by a person acting under state authority.

The court held that the allegations were insufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. Double-celling does not violate the Eighth Amendment unless it results in deprivation of essential food, medical care, sanitation, or other basic necessities. The court found that Moreno had not alleged that the conditions were otherwise unsafe or unsanitary, or that the defendants had deprived him of basic necessities, inflicted unnecessary pain, or placed him in grave or inhumane conditions.

The court also stated that state regulations did not by themselves establish a constitutional right, and that the out-of-state cases Moreno cited did not establish that double-celling at the Correctional Training Facility violated the Eighth Amendment. The court granted leave to amend so Moreno could attempt to provide facts showing that double-celling deprived him of basic necessities or otherwise created unconstitutional conditions. The court also explained that an individual defendant could be liable only if that defendant proximately caused the alleged deprivation.

Pending Motions

Moreno filed a second motion for a preliminary injunction and a second motion for appointment of counsel. The court denied the preliminary-injunction motion as premature because the defendants had not yet been notified of the action. The court stated that Moreno could refile that motion if he filed an amended complaint stating a legally sufficient claim and the matter was served on the defendants.

The court denied the second request for appointment of counsel because Moreno’s asserted grounds did not distinguish his case from those of other prisoner-plaintiffs and therefore did not establish exceptional circumstances. The court noted that there is generally no constitutional right to counsel in a civil § 1983 action.

Disposition

The complaint was DISMISSED with leave to amend. Moreno was ordered to file an amended complaint using the court’s form within 28 days of the order. The court warned that failing to file an amended complaint or notice within that period would result in dismissal of the matter for failure to state a claim without further notice. The court DENIED the motions for appointment of counsel and for a preliminary injunction, terminating Docket Nos. 20 and 21.