Castillo v. Borla
- TLT
- 3:26-cv-04793
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Castillo v. Borla, Judge TLT allowed a prisoner's lawsuit claiming an unconstitutionally small cell violates the Eighth Amendment to proceed against two prison officials.
Prisoners in California state correctional facilities who file pro se civil rights lawsuits alleging Eighth Amendment violations related to cell size or living conditions, particularly those whose cases may be affected by a potential bellwether case designation in the Northern District of California.
What happened
In Castillo v. Borla, No. 26-cv-04793, a prisoner at Correctional Training Facility named Victor H. Castillo filed a civil rights lawsuit on his own behalf against CTF Warden Edward Borla and Jeffrey Macomber, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Castillo claims that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right — the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment — by housing him in an unconstitutionally small cell, and he is seeking money damages.
Before a prisoner's lawsuit can move forward in federal court, a judge must screen it to determine whether it states a real legal claim. The court reviewed whether Castillo's complaint contained enough factual allegations to support a plausible Eighth Amendment claim about inadequate living space. The court found that, reading the complaint generously as required for self-represented litigants, Castillo had adequately stated such a claim against both defendants.
The presiding judge ordered the case to proceed and directed that both defendants — Warden Borla and Secretary Macomber — be served with the lawsuit through the CDCR's electronic service program. However, all briefing is currently on hold while the court decides whether to designate a related case as a bellwether (a test case that would be tried first to guide resolution of similar cases). The case is noted as related to another pending matter raising similar allegations.
The detailed version
- Castillo v. Borla · No. 3:26-cv-04793
- TLT
- Sept. 4, 2026
Background
Victor H. Castillo, a prisoner at Correctional Training Facility (CTF), filed a pro se (self-represented) civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal statute that allows individuals to sue state officials for violating their constitutional rights. The complaint names two defendants: (1) Edward Borla, identified as the CTF Warden, and (2) Jeffrey Macomber, identified as the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Castillo alleges that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights — the constitutional bar on cruel and unusual punishment — by housing him in an unconstitutionally small cell. He seeks damages.
The court noted that this case is related to a separately filed matter, No. 25-cv-02820-TLT (McKenzie v. Borla), which raises similar or identical allegations.
Legal Standard Applied
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, federal courts must screen prisoner complaints before service to identify cognizable (legally valid) claims and dismiss any that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from suit. Pro se pleadings are construed liberally. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege (1) a violation of a constitutional or federal statutory right, and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law (i.e., a government official using official authority).
The court applied the standard from Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007): factual allegations must raise the right to relief above speculation and must be sufficient to state a plausible claim on its face.
Analysis and Ruling
The court briefly noted the governing Eighth Amendment principle — that while the Constitution does not require comfortable prisons, it does require that prisoners be housed under humane conditions — citing Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981). Reading the complaint liberally, the court found that Castillo has stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against both defendants for inadequate living space.
Accordingly, the court issued an Order of Service directing that the complaint be served on Borla and Macomber through the CDCR's electronic service program. The court directed the Clerk to send the complaint, this order, a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver form, and a summons to the CDCR via email. Within 40 days, the CDCR must report which defendants will waive formal service; those who do must have a waiver filed within 21 more days. Defendants who waive service will have 60 days from when the CDCR provides the waiver report to the California Attorney General's Office to answer; defendants formally served by the U.S. Marshal must answer within 21 days of service.
Bellwether Stay
All briefing is currently stayed while the court considers whether to designate a bellwether case (a test case to be resolved first as a guide for related cases). If the court grants a motion to set a bellwether, non-bellwether cases — potentially including this one — will be stayed. If the motion is denied, the court will set a briefing schedule in each related case.
Pro Se Obligations
The court reminded Castillo that he is responsible for prosecuting his case, must keep the court informed of any address changes under Local Rule 3-11, and must serve copies of all filings on defendants or their counsel. The court noted that failure to maintain a current address could result in dismissal without prejudice.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.