Derrell Musantha Smith v. Edward Borla, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California screened a pro se prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court dismissed CDCR on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds but found a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim concerning allegedly inadequate double-cell living space against Warden Edward Borla and CDCR Secretary Jefferey Macomber, and ordered service.

Holdings

1. CDCR, as an agency of the State of California, is dismissed from the damages action because it is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
2. Liberally construed, allegations that prison officials housed the plaintiff in an allegedly unconstitutionally small double cell stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Borla and Macomber.
3. Service of the complaint must proceed against Edward Borla and Jefferey Macomber through the CDCR e-service program, with formal United States Marshal service for any defendant who does not waive service.
4. If failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA is clear on the face of the complaint, defendants may move under Rule 12(b)(6); otherwise, the issue must ordinarily be presented through a Rule 56 motion supported by evidence, with disputed factual issues resolved by the district judge in a preliminary proceeding.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim based on allegedly inadequate prison living space.
2. Whether CDCR was immune from a damages action under the Eleventh Amendment.
3. Whether the complaint should be served on the individual defendants after screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Disposition

other