Moreno v. Borla

Background

Albert Moreno, a prisoner at Correctional Training Facility, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. After the original complaint was dismissed with permission to amend, Moreno filed a First Amended Complaint. The court reviewed that complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Moreno 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. He alleged that defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by housing prisoners in certain North Yard buildings in rooms that were not built as double cells, providing only 9.5 square feet per prisoner. He sought damages.

Screening Ruling

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

The court held that, when the allegations were read liberally, Moreno stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Borla and Macomber for inadequate living space. A cognizable claim is one that may proceed because the allegations are legally sufficient at the screening stage; the ruling did not decide whether Moreno will ultimately prevail.

Preliminary-Injunction Motion and Case Schedule

Moreno had filed his motion for a preliminary injunction for a third time. The court ordered Borla and Macomber to respond to that motion on the same date their answer is due. Moreno may file a reply within 28 days after their response. The court required the response and reply to include adequate factual support and comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ordered service on Borla and Macomber through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program, with United States Marshals Service procedures for any defendant who does not waive service. The defendants must answer the complaint, and the order sets deadlines for dispositive motions, opposition, and reply briefs. The order also permits discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and allows the defendants to depose Moreno and other necessary witnesses confined in prison.

Disposition

The order dismissed CDCR as a defendant, found that Moreno stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Borla and Macomber, ordered service of the amended complaint, and required responses to the preliminary-injunction motion. It did not grant or deny the preliminary injunction.