Athey v. Borla

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California screened Timothy J. Athey’s pro se prisoner civil-rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court dismissed CDCR on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds, found a cognizable Eighth Amendment inadequate-living-space claim against Edward Borla and Jefferey Macomber, ordered service, and denied Athey’s motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice.

Holdings

1. Liberally construed, the complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Borla and Macomber for inadequate living space.
2. CDCR was dismissed because it is an agency of the State of California and has Eleventh Amendment immunity from a damages action.
3. The motion for a preliminary injunction was denied without prejudice because plaintiff did not establish likelihood of success, likely irreparable harm, a favorable balance of equities, or that an injunction would serve the public interest.
4. The court lacked jurisdiction to order injunctive relief against unnamed officers who were not defendants in the action and whose involvement was not alleged.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim based on inadequate living space and double-celling.
2. Whether CDCR was immune from a damages claim under the Eleventh Amendment.
3. Whether plaintiff was entitled to a preliminary injunction based on alleged retaliation and threatened double-celling.
4. Whether the court had jurisdiction to enjoin unnamed officers who were not defendants and whose conduct was not connected to the claims against the named defendants.

Disposition

other