Steven W. LaBelle v. Edward Borla, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California screened Steven W. LaBelle’s pro se prisoner civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court found that the complaint plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment claim based on allegedly inadequate living space in a double cell and ordered service on the named defendants. The order also establishes deadlines for service, responsive pleadings, dispositive motions, discovery, and other case-management requirements.

Holdings

1. Liberally construed, the allegations that LaBelle was housed in a double cell with approximately 19 square feet of unencumbered space stated an Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate living space against the named defendants.
2. The complaint survived preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and service was ordered on Edward Borla, Jefferey Macomber, and Connie Gipson.
3. In the Ninth Circuit, a defendant may raise failure to exhaust under Rule 12(b)(6) when the failure to exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint; otherwise, the issue must be supported by evidence in a Rule 56 summary-judgment motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the prisoner's complaint stated a cognizable claim under the Eighth Amendment based on allegedly inadequate living space.
2. Whether the complaint should be screened and served under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
3. What procedural requirements and deadlines should govern service, responsive pleadings, dispositive motions, and discovery.

Disposition

other