Gumienny v. Borla
- Virginia Demarchi
- 3:26-cv-04863
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Garth J Gumienny v. Edward Borla, Judge Demarchi found a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim and ordered service on Borla and Macomber.
Garth J Gumienny, Edward Borla, and Jeffrey Macomber. The complaint proceeds against Borla and Macomber, and the court ordered service on them.
What happened
Garth J Gumienny, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, sued CTF Warden Edward Borla and CDCR Secretary Jeffrey Macomber under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that housing him in an unusually small cell violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The court screened the complaint as required in prisoner cases. It concluded that Gumienny had stated a valid claim concerning inadequate living space and sought damages, so the case will proceed against Borla and Macomber.
Judge Demarchi ordered service of the complaint through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service process. Briefing is stayed while the court considers whether to designate a related case as a lead case.
The detailed version
- Gumienny v. Borla · No. 3:26-cv-04863
- Virginia Demarchi
- Sept. 10, 2026
Background
Garth J Gumienny, a prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case is related to an earlier proceeding involving similar or identical allegations. The complaint names Edward Borla, the facility’s warden, and Jeffrey Macomber, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Gumienny alleges that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by housing him in an unconstitutionally small cell. He seeks damages.
Screening and Analysis
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires courts to review prisoner complaints seeking relief from government entities or officials. At this stage, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or barred by immunity.
The court explained that an Eighth Amendment prison-conditions claim requires living conditions that amount to unconstitutional punishment or deprivation. Although the Constitution does not require comfortable prisons, the court concluded that, when the allegations were read liberally, Gumienny stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim based on inadequate living space.
Order
The court held that Gumienny stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Borla and Macomber. It ordered service on both defendants through the CDCR electronic-service program. If either defendant does not waive service, the clerk will prepare documents for service by the United States Marshals Service.
The defendants must answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, subject to the service-related deadlines described in the order. Briefing is currently stayed while the court decides whether to designate a bellwether case; the court will either continue the stay for related non-bellwether cases or set briefing schedules after ruling on that motion. The order also requires Gumienny to serve his court communications on the defendants or their counsel and to keep the court informed of any address change.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.