Krishnan v. Borla
- Susan Van Keulen
- 3:26-cv-05197
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Krishnan v. Borla, the court found an Eighth Amendment claim plausible and ordered service on three defendants.
Jay Shalendra Krishnan’s claim against Edward Borla, Cynthia Rojas, and Jeffrey Macomber may proceed past initial prisoner screening. The defendants must respond to the service process, although briefing is currently stayed.
What happened
In Jay Shalendra Krishnan v. Edward Borla, et al., the court reviewed a prisoner’s civil-rights complaint under the required screening process. Krishnan alleged that prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment by housing him in an unconstitutionally small cell and sought damages.
The court determined that the complaint stated a cognizable claim for inadequate living space against Edward Borla, Cynthia Rojas, and Jeffrey Macomber. The case will proceed against those defendants, and the court ordered service through the prison system’s electronic service program or, if necessary, through the U.S. Marshals Service.
The court also stayed briefing while it considers whether to designate a related bellwether case. The judge’s name is not legible in the opinion’s signature, so the ruling is attributed to the court.
The detailed version
- Krishnan v. Borla · No. 3:26-cv-05197
- Susan Van Keulen
- Sept. 8, 2026
Background
Jay Shalendra Krishnan, a prisoner at Correctional Training Facility, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint named CTF Wardens Edward Borla and Cynthia Rojas and Jeffrey Macomber, identified as the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Krishnan 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 identified in the opinion as No. 25-cv-02820-TLT, which involved similar or identical allegations.
Screening and claim
Because a prisoner filed a complaint seeking relief from governmental officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening process requires the court to identify legally supportable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, insufficiently pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read liberally, while still requiring enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible.
The court stated that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a constitutional or federal right by a person acting under state law. Applying that standard, the court concluded that Krishnan had stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Borla, Rojas, and Macomber for inadequate living space.
Order
The court ordered service on Edward Borla, Cynthia Rojas, and Jeffrey Macomber through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order directs the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to report which defendants waive service. Defendants who do not waive service may be served by the U.S. Marshals Service.
The defendants must answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order states that briefing is currently stayed while the court decides whether to set a bellwether case. Depending on that decision, the court will either continue the stay for non-bellwether cases or set a briefing schedule in the related cases. The order also requires Krishnan to serve future communications on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court deadlines.
Disposition
The court found a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim and ordered service on the three named defendants. The opinion does not identify the judge by a legible name in the provided text.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.