Boone v. Rojas
- Alex Tse
- 3:26-cv-03380
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In James Boone v. Cynthia Rojas, the court (judge not identified) found Boone’s Eighth Amendment claim cognizable and ordered service.
James Boone’s case may proceed past initial prisoner screening on his Eighth Amendment inadequate-living-space claim against Cynthia Rojas and Jeffrey Macomber. The order also directs the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the California Attorney General’s Office, and the United States Marshals Service to carry out specified service procedures.
What happened
In James Boone v. Cynthia Rojas, James Boone, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that Cynthia Rojas and Jeffrey Macomber housed him in an unconstitutionally small cell. He brought a civil-rights claim under federal law and sought damages.
The court screened the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute and found that Boone had stated a claim for inadequate living space under the Eighth Amendment. The order directed that the complaint be served on Rojas and Macomber.
The order also stayed briefing while the court considers whether to designate a related case as a lead case, and it set procedures for service and future responses. The judge’s name is not identified in the opinion; the order is signed by a United States District Judge.
The detailed version
- Boone v. Rojas · No. 3:26-cv-03380
- Alex Tse
- Sept. 8, 2026
Background
James Boone, identified as a prisoner at Correctional Training Facility, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was related to No. 25-cv-02820-TLT, which the opinion says involved similar or identical allegations. Boone named Cynthia Rojas, the warden of Correctional Training Facility, and Jeffrey Macomber, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Boone alleged that Rojas and Macomber violated his Eighth Amendment rights by housing him in an unconstitutionally small cell. He sought damages.
Screening analysis
The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from a governmental entity or its officer or employee. At screening, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.
The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires allegations that a federal right was violated and that the violation was committed by someone acting under state authority. Construing Boone’s allegations liberally, the court concluded that he had stated a legally cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Rojas and Macomber for inadequate living space.
Order
The court ordered service on Rojas and Macomber through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order described procedures for reporting whether each defendant waives service and for arranging service through the United States Marshals Service if necessary. It directed the defendants to answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Briefing is currently stayed while the court decides whether to set a bellwether case. The order states that, depending on that decision, the related cases will either remain stayed or receive briefing schedules. The opinion does not identify the United States District Judge by name.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.