Staley v. Borla
- Alex Tse
- 3:26-cv-04574
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Paul James Staley v. Edward Borla, Judge Tse found Staley stated an Eighth Amendment claim and ordered service on Borla and Macomber.
Paul James Staley, Edward Borla, and Jeffrey Macomber; the case will proceed past initial screening against Borla and Macomber.
What happened
Paul James Staley, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, sued Edward Borla and Jeffrey Macomber under a federal civil-rights law. Staley alleged that housing him in an unconstitutionally small cell violated the Eighth Amendment and sought damages.
The court screened the complaint as required in prisoner cases. It found that, liberally interpreted, the complaint stated a valid Eighth Amendment claim against both defendants.
Judge Tse ordered the complaint served on Borla and Macomber through the prison department’s electronic service process. The court also stayed briefing while it considers whether to designate a related bellwether case.
The detailed version
- Staley v. Borla · No. 3:26-cv-04574
- Alex Tse
- Sept. 21, 2026
Background
Paul James Staley, a prisoner at Correctional Training Facility, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named Edward Borla, the warden of Correctional Training Facility, and Jeffrey Macomber, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Staley 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 another case identified in the order as 25-cv-02820-TLT, McKenzie v. Borla, which the court said raised similar or identical allegations.
Prisoner screening
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This screening requires a federal court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but must still include enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that the Constitution does not require comfortable prisons but does require prison conditions to meet constitutional standards. Reading Staley’s allegations liberally, the court held that he had stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate living space against Borla and Macomber. The order did not decide whether Staley will ultimately prevail or award damages.
Order
The court ordered service of the complaint on Edward Borla and Jeffrey Macomber through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order sets procedures for identifying whether the defendants will waive service and, if necessary, for service by the United States Marshals Service.
The defendants must answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Briefing is currently stayed while the court decides whether to set a bellwether case. After that decision, the court will either continue the stay in non-bellwether cases or set briefing schedules in the related cases. The order also requires Staley to serve communications on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and prosecute the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.