Lopez v. Borla

Background

Juan Pablo Lopez, 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, the warden of Correctional Training Facility; Jeffrey Macomber, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation itself. Lopez 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 by docket number 25-cv-02820-TLT, which involved similar or identical allegations.

Screening analysis

The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires screening when a prisoner seeks relief from a governmental entity or officer. The court explained that it must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. It also explained that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read liberally, but still must include enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible.

The court dismissed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as a defendant because it is an agency of the state. The court concluded that, when read liberally, Lopez’s allegations stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Borla and Macomber for inadequate living space. The opinion did not resolve whether Lopez will ultimately prevail on that claim.

Order

Judge [name unclear] ordered service of the complaint on Borla 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. The order sets procedures and deadlines for waiving service or completing formal service.

The court stated that briefing was stayed while it considered whether to designate a related case as a lead case. It directed defendants to answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, subject to the stated service and stay provisions. It also directed Lopez to serve his court communications on defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and prosecute the case. The order stated that requests for reasonable extensions of time may be granted upon a showing of good cause if filed by the applicable deadline.