Vargas v. Borla

Background

Eddie M. Vargas, Sr., who is incarcerated 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 prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Vargas 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. He alleged that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by housing him in an inadequately small double cell with another prisoner since June 15, 2017. He alleged that the cell had only 19 square feet and that prisoners had been housed two to a room in certain North Yard buildings since 2011, even though those rooms were not built as double cells. He sought damages.

Screening analysis

At the screening stage, the court must identify claims that are legally sufficient and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court must read a complaint filed without a lawyer liberally.

The court dismissed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation because it is an agency of the state and has Eleventh Amendment immunity from a damages action. The court did not dismiss the claims against Borla and Macomber. Reading the complaint liberally, it found that Vargas had stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate living space.

Order

The court ordered service on Edward Borla and Jefferey Macomber through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. It directed the clerk and the agency to take steps to obtain waivers of service or arrange service through the United States Marshals Service.

The order requires the defendants to answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It sets deadlines for dispositive motions, including summary judgment, and for Vargas’s opposition and the defendants’ reply. It also permits discovery under the Federal Rules and grants defendants permission to depose Vargas and other necessary witnesses confined in prison.

The court advised Vargas about the evidence needed to oppose summary judgment and about possible dismissal for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. These instructions concern future proceedings; the order does not state that Vargas failed to exhaust his remedies or decide the ultimate merits of his Eighth Amendment claim.