McCall v. Borla

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 complaint seeking relief from a governmental entity or officer.

McCall named CTF Warden Edward Borla, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary Jefferey Macomber, CTF Fire Chief Marco Hernandez, California Fire Marshal Daniel Berlant, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He alleged that Borla and Macomber violated the Eighth Amendment by housing him in an unconstitutionally small cell.

He also alleged that Hernandez and Berlant negligently or grossly negligently failed to conduct adequate prison inspections, correct known dangerous and non-compliant conditions, or close the prison. He attributed various injuries and harms to those conditions, including lower back pain, sleep deprivation, serious rules-violation reports, loss of privileges, mental harm, and trauma. He sought damages, an injunction, and a declaration.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the allegations concerning facility inspections did not state a federal or constitutional claim. It also concluded that it lacked supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence and other state-law claims because the inspection allegations were not part of the same case or controversy as the claim that inadequate living space violated the Eighth Amendment. 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 suits seeking damages.

The court held that, when liberally construed, McCall’s allegations stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Borla and Macomber based on inadequate living space. The court ordered service on those two defendants.

Order

The order dismissed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and dismissed Hernandez and Berlant. It found a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Borla and Macomber and directed the clerk to begin the service process through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program. Defendants who waive service must respond under the applicable federal rules; defendants served by the United States Marshals Service must answer within the period stated in the order.

Briefing is currently stayed while the court decides whether to designate a related case as a bellwether case. The order also requires McCall to serve copies of his communications on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court deadlines.