McKenzie v. Borla

Background

Christopher Bryan McKenzie, a prisoner at Correctional Training Facility, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had dismissed his original complaint while allowing him to amend. The First Amended Complaint was before the court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires federal courts to review prisoner complaints against governmental entities or officials and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or barred by immunity.

The amended complaint named Edward Borla, the warden of Correctional Training Facility; Jefferey Macomber, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation itself. McKenzie alleged that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by housing him with another prisoner in a cell that had only 19 square feet of space. He alleged that this double-celling had continued since November 9, 2022, and that certain buildings at the facility had been used for double-celling since 2011 even though they were not built as double cells. He sought damages.

Court’s Analysis

The court dismissed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as a defendant because it is an agency of the state and therefore has Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages claims.

The court stated that the Eighth Amendment requires prisons to provide prisoners with the minimal civilized necessities of life, although it does not require comfortable prison conditions. Construing McKenzie’s allegations liberally, the court found that he had stated a cognizable, meaning legally sufficient at the screening stage, Eighth Amendment claim against Borla and Macomber based on inadequate living space.

Ruling and Next Steps

The court ordered that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program be used to serve Borla and Macomber. It directed the clerk to send the operative complaint, the order of service, a service-waiver form, and summonses to the department. The order also established procedures for service waivers, service by the United States Marshals Service if necessary, defendants’ answers, dispositive motions, briefing, and discovery.

The court directed defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion no later than 60 days after their answer was due, unless they informed the court that the case could not be resolved that way. McKenzie’s opposition would be due 28 days after the motion, and defendants’ reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court also authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and granted defendants permission to depose McKenzie and other necessary witnesses confined in prison.

The provided opinion text does not clearly identify the judge by full name; the signature is incomplete or unclear.