Athey v. Borla

Background

Timothy J. Athey, a prisoner at Correctional Training Facility, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Athey named Correctional Training Facility Warden Edward Borla, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary Jefferey Macomber, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He alleged that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by housing him in a double cell with only 19 square feet of space since September 2009. He also alleged that prisoners had been double-celled in certain North Yard buildings since 2011 even though those rooms were not built as double cells. He sought damages.

Screening ruling

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

The court concluded that, when read generously, Athey’s allegations stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Borla and Macomber for inadequate living space. The court therefore ordered service of the complaint on those two defendants. The order did not decide whether Athey will ultimately prevail on that claim.

Preliminary-injunction motion

Athey asked the court to preserve the status quo while the case proceeds. He alleged that officers had used or threatened disciplinary action to force him to share a cell and that other prisoners who filed similar suits had been threatened with transfer. The court said the motion appeared identical to motions filed in related cases and did not contain information specific to Athey.

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary order issued before final judgment. The court said Athey had not shown a likelihood of success, likely immediate irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships favored him, or that an injunction would serve the public interest. The court also said that because the complaint suggested Athey was already in a double cell, a threat to force him into a double cell would not constitute retaliation. It further stated that it had no jurisdiction to order relief against unnamed officers who were not defendants in this case and that Athey had not alleged involvement by Borla or Macomber.

The discussion states that the preliminary-injunction motion was denied without prejudice. The conclusion separately states that the motion was denied. The order also directed service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program and established procedures for answering, discovery, and later dispositive motions.