Anthony Ray McCall v. Edward Borla, et al.
- Son
- 3:18-cv-00939
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Anthony Ray McCall v. Edward Borla, Judge Son screened the complaint, dismissed some defendants, and ordered service on Borla and Macomber.
Anthony Ray McCall may continue his Eighth Amendment claim about inadequate living space against Edward Borla and Jefferey Macomber. Marco Hernandez, Daniel Berlant, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation were dismissed as defendants. Borla and Macomber must be served and respond under the procedures in the order.
What happened
In Anthony Ray McCall v. Edward Borla, a prisoner brought a civil-rights case under federal law challenging the size of his prison cell and other prison conditions.
The court dismissed the claims against Hernandez, Berlant, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. It found that McCall had stated a claim under the Eighth Amendment against Borla and Macomber based on allegedly inadequate living space.
Judge Son ordered the case served on Borla and Macomber. The order also set service procedures and stated that briefing is currently stayed while the court considers whether to designate a related case as the lead case.
The detailed version
- Anthony Ray McCall v. Edward Borla, et al. · No. 3:18-cv-00939
- Son
- Mar. 3, 2026
Background
Anthony Ray McCall, 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 preliminary review of a prisoner’s case seeking relief from a government entity or official.
McCall alleged that Warden Edward Borla and Secretary Jefferey Macomber violated his Eighth Amendment rights by housing him in an unconstitutionally small cell. He also alleged that Fire Chief Marco Hernandez and California Fire Marshal Daniel Berlant failed to perform adequate prison inspections, correct known dangerous conditions, or close the prison. He described negligence and gross-negligence claims, as well as back pain, sleep deprivation, loss of privileges, and harm to his mental well-being. He sought damages and injunctive and declaratory relief.
Screening analysis
The court concluded that McCall’s allegations about inadequate facility inspections did not state a federal or constitutional claim. It also concluded that it lacked supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—because the inspection allegations were not part of the same case or controversy as the claim about inadequate living space. The court therefore dismissed Hernandez and Berlant.
The court dismissed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation because it is a state agency and has immunity under the Eleventh Amendment from damages claims. The court separately held that, liberally construed, McCall stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Borla and Macomber based on inadequate living space.
Order
Judge Son ordered that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation be dismissed and that the claim against Borla and Macomber be served. The Clerk was directed to send the complaint, the order, a summons, and service-waiver materials through the department’s electronic-service program. Defendants who waive service must answer under the applicable federal rules; defendants served by the United States Marshals Service must answer within the period stated in the order.
The order states that briefing is currently stayed while the court decides whether to designate a related case as a lead case. It also requires McCall to serve copies of his communications on the defendants or their counsel and to keep the court informed of any address change.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.