Smith v. Borla
- 3:25-cv-03247
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Smith v. Borla, the court screened the complaint, dismissed CDCR, and ordered service on Borla and Macomber.
Derrell Musantha Smith’s claim against CDCR was dismissed, while his Eighth Amendment claim against Edward Borla and Jefferey Macomber proceeds to service and further litigation.
What happened
In Derrell Musantha Smith v. Edward Borla, et al., Derrell Musantha Smith, a prisoner representing himself, alleged that officials housed him in an unconstitutionally small double cell. He brought a civil-rights claim under federal law against Edward Borla, Jefferey Macomber, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).\n\nThe court dismissed CDCR because it is a state agency protected from damages claims by the Eleventh Amendment. It found that Smith stated a valid Eighth Amendment claim against Borla and Macomber based on the alleged inadequate living space.\n\nThe court ordered service of the complaint on Borla and Macomber and set procedures for the defendants’ responses and later motions. The order was issued by the court on November 4, 2025.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Borla · No. 3:25-cv-03247
- Nov. 4, 2025
Background
Derrell Musantha Smith, a prisoner at Correctional Training Facility, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires an initial review of a prisoner’s claims against a governmental entity or officer.
Smith named Edward Borla, identified as the warden of Correctional Training Facility; Jefferey Macomber, identified as the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation itself. He alleged that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by housing him in a double cell with only 19 square feet of space since May 7, 2024. He also alleged that prisoners had been placed in double cells in certain North Yard buildings since 2011, even though those rooms were not built as double cells. Smith sought damages.
Screening analysis
The court dismissed CDCR because it is an agency of the state and has Eleventh Amendment immunity from a damages suit. The court liberally construed the complaint and concluded that Smith stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Borla and Macomber for inadequate living space.
Order
The court ordered that service proceed on Borla and Macomber through CDCR’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. It directed the clerk and CDCR to take steps to obtain waivers of service or arrange service by the United States Marshals Service. The order also established deadlines for answers, dispositive motions, opposition and reply briefs, and permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court advised Smith about the requirements for opposing summary judgment and about possible dismissal for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies.
The court’s order did not decide whether Smith will ultimately prevail on his Eighth Amendment claim; it allowed that claim to proceed past initial screening while dismissing CDCR.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.