Kmaal M. Lawrence v. Edward Borla, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California screens a prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that double-celling in an allegedly undersized cell violates the Eighth Amendment. The court dismisses the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as immune from damages claims, permits the Eighth Amendment claim to proceed against Edward Borla and Jefferey Macomber, and orders service. The court denies without prejudice the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Holdings

1. CDCR is dismissed as a defendant because it is an agency of the state and therefore has Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit for damages.
2. Liberally construed, plaintiff has stated an Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Borla and Macomber for inadequate living space.
3. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is denied because plaintiff has not shown likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood of irreparable harm, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction would serve the public interest.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Borla and Macomber for inadequate living space
2. Whether defendant CDCR should be dismissed on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction

Disposition

other