Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Leonard Saldana, a prisoner at Correctional Training Facility (CTF), filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by housing him in an unconstitutionally small cell. The complaint named CTF Warden Edward Borla, CDCR Secretary Jeffrey Macomber, CTF Associate Warden C. Freeman, and CDCR Office of Appeals Associate Director Howard E. Moseley. The case was related to McKenzie v. Borla, 25-cv-02820-TLT, which raised similar allegations. The court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires dismissal of prisoner claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from immune defendants, while liberally construing pro se pleadings.
The court applied the standard that a § 1983 plaintiff must allege (1) a violation of a constitutional right and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. Under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, a complaint must contain enough factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on its face. The court also noted that if a complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim, leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires, though courts have discretion to deny amendment for undue delay, bad faith, or futility.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed with prejudice Saldana's claims against defendants Freeman and Moseley because the allegations showed only that they reviewed and denied his grievances, and denial of a grievance is not itself a constitutional violation. Section 1983 liability requires personal participation in or direction of the alleged constitutional violation, citing James v. Rowlands, 606 F.3d 646, 653 n.3 (9th Cir. 2010). However, liberally construing the pro se complaint, the court found Saldana stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Borla and Macomber for inadequate living space, relying on Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981), which holds that the Constitution requires prisoners receive the "minimal civilized measure of life's necessities."
The court ordered service on Borla and Macomber through CDCR's e-service program for civil rights cases from prisoners in CDCR custody. The Clerk was directed to serve the operative complaint, this order, a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver form, and a summons via email to CDCR. The CDCR must provide a completed waiver report within 40 days advising which defendants waive service and which do not. For defendants not waiving service, the Clerk will prepare USM-285 forms for service by the U.S. Marshal Service. Defendants who waive service have 60 days from the date the California Attorney General's Office receives the waiver report to answer; those served by USMS have 21 days. Briefing remains stayed pursuant to a prior order relating cases (Dkt. No. 8).
Key Takeaways
- A prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim based on unconstitutionally small cell size can survive § 1915A screening when liberally construed, even without specific dimensional measurements in the complaint.
- Prison officials who merely review and deny grievances are not personally liable under § 1983 absent allegations of personal participation in or direction of the constitutional violation.
- Claims against grievance reviewers were dismissed with prejudice, while claims against the warden and CDCR secretary proceed.
- The court utilized CDCR's e-service program, which streamlines service on state prison officials and provides extended response time (60 days) for defendants who waive service.
- The case remains related to McKenzie v. Borla with briefing stayed pending further order.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the application of § 1915A screening in prisoner civil rights cases: pro se complaints receive liberal construction, but the personal participation requirement for § 1983 liability remains a significant hurdle for claims against supervisory officials who only review grievances. The court's reliance on Rhodes v. Chapman confirms that inadequate living space claims remain viable under the Eighth Amendment's evolving standards of decency. The use of CDCR's e-service program reflects the Northern District of California's established procedure for efficient service on state corrections officials in prisoner litigation.