Rodriguez v. Borla
- Beth Freeman
- 3:26-cv-03343
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Isaiah Rodriguez v. Borla, the court found Rodriguez’s cell-space claim sufficient to proceed and ordered service; the judge’s name is not stated.
Isaiah Rodriguez’s case may proceed against Edward Borla and Jefferey Macomber on the pleaded Eighth Amendment claim concerning inadequate living space; the defendants must participate in service and later respond under the order’s procedures.
What happened
Isaiah Rodriguez v. Edward Borla, et al. concerns a complaint by Rodriguez, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, against Correctional Training Facility Warden Edward Borla and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary Jefferey Macomber. Rodriguez alleged that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by housing him in an unconstitutionally small cell.
The court screened the complaint under the prisoner-screening law and found that Rodriguez stated a sufficient Eighth Amendment claim about inadequate living space. It ordered the complaint served on Borla and Macomber. The court also stayed briefing while it considers whether to designate a related case as a lead or “bellwether” case.
The court ordered service and entered related case-management instructions; it did not dismiss the complaint. The opinion is dated September 1, 2026, and does not state the judge’s name.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. Borla · No. 3:26-cv-03343
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 1, 2026
Background
Isaiah Rodriguez, a prisoner at Correctional Training Facility, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint named Edward Borla, identified as the warden of the facility, and Jefferey Macomber, identified as the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Rodriguez alleged that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by housing him in an unconstitutionally small cell. He sought damages.
The case was related to an earlier case involving similar or identical allegations. The court considered Rodriguez’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires screening of a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from a government entity or official. At screening, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or barred because they seek money from an immune defendant.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires allegations that a federal right was violated by a person acting under state authority. Applying that standard and construing Rodriguez’s allegations liberally, the court concluded that he stated an Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate living space.
Order
The court stated that Rodriguez had a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Borla and Macomber. It ordered service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. If either defendant does not waive service, the United States Marshals Service is to serve that defendant.
The defendants must answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, subject to the timing provisions described in the order. Briefing is stayed while the court decides whether to designate a related case as a bellwether case. The order also requires Rodriguez to serve future communications on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of any address change, and prosecute the case. The opinion does not state the judge’s name.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.