Hidalgo v. Rojas
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:26-cv-05200
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Albert Eladio Hidalgo v. Cynthia Rojas, the unidentified judge found Hidalgo’s prison-cell claim valid enough to proceed and ordered service.
Albert Eladio Hidalgo’s § 1983 case may proceed past initial prisoner screening against Cynthia Rojas and Jeffrey Macomber on his Eighth Amendment inadequate-living-space claim. The defendants must respond through the service process described in the order, although briefing is currently stayed.
What happened
Albert Eladio Hidalgo, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, sued Cynthia Rojas and Jeffrey Macomber under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that housing him in an unusually small cell violated the Eighth Amendment and sought money damages.
During the required initial review of a prisoner’s complaint, the court found that Hidalgo had stated a valid Eighth Amendment claim about inadequate living space against Rojas and Macomber.
The unidentified judge ordered the defendants served through the California prison system’s electronic service process. The court also stayed briefing while it considers whether to designate a related case as a test case.
The detailed version
- Hidalgo v. Rojas · No. 3:26-cv-05200
- Thomas Hixson
- Sept. 8, 2026
Background
Albert Eladio Hidalgo, 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 an earlier case identified in the opinion as McKenzie v. Borla, which involved similar or identical allegations.
Hidalgo named Cynthia Rojas, the warden of Correctional Training Facility, and Jeffrey Macomber, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He alleged that they violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment by housing him in an unconstitutionally small cell. He sought damages.
Screening analysis
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires an initial review of a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from a government entity or officer. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. It also explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by someone acting under state authority.
The court concluded that, when read liberally, Hidalgo’s allegations stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Rojas and Macomber for inadequate living space. The opinion did not decide whether Hidalgo will ultimately prevail on that claim.
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 clerk was directed to send the complaint, the order, a service-waiver form, and summons materials to the department and to send Hidalgo a copy of the order. The department must report within 40 days which defendants will waive service; defendants who waive service receive the response period described in the order, while defendants served by the United States Marshals Service must answer within 21 days after service.
The court stated that briefing is currently stayed while it decides whether to set a related bellwether, or test, case. The order also requires Hidalgo to serve his court communications on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and prosecute the case. The unidentified judge entered the order dated September 4, 2026.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.