Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Anthony Phillip Rose, a prisoner at Correctional Training Facility (CTF), filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Northern District of California. The complaint names CTF Warden Cynthia Rojas and Jeffrey Macomber, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). The case was related to McKenzie v. Borla, No. 25-cv-02820-TLT, which raises similar or identical allegations.
Rose alleges that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by housing him in an unconstitutionally small cell, and he seeks damages. Because he is a prisoner suing governmental officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires it to identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from immune defendants. The court construed the pro se pleading liberally and applied Rule 8 and Twombly, which require enough facts to state a plausible claim. A § 1983 plaintiff must allege the violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law. The order also recites that leave to amend is freely given when a complaint is dismissed, but nothing was dismissed here.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that, liberally construed, Rose has stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Rojas and Macomber for inadequate living space. Citing Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981), it observed that the Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons but does require the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities, and that the Eighth Amendment draws its meaning from evolving standards of decency. The analysis is brief and is a pleading-stage determination only. The court did not find that the cell was in fact unconstitutional, and it did not address defenses or the damages sought.
The court ordered service under the CDCR e-service program for prisoner civil rights cases. The Clerk is to email the CDCR the complaint, the order, a Report of E-Service Waiver form, and a summons. Within 40 days of that email, the CDCR must report which defendants will waive service and which decline or could not be reached. The California Attorney General's Office must then file waivers within 21 days for those who are waiving. For any defendant who does not waive, the Clerk will prepare USM-285 forms so the U.S. Marshals Service can serve them.
If service is waived, defendants need not answer before 60 days from the date the CDCR gives its report to the Attorney General's Office. If the Marshals serve a defendant, an answer is due 21 days after service. Those deadlines are qualified, however. Briefing is stayed under the order relating cases (Dkt. No. 8), and no answer is due while the case is stayed under the bellwether order. The court also required Rose to serve his filings on defendants or their counsel and to keep the court informed of address changes under Local Rule 3-11. It said extensions will be granted for good cause if requested before the deadline.
Key Takeaways
- A screening order finding a claim cognizable is not a ruling on the merits; here the court held only that Rose's allegation of an unconstitutionally small cell, liberally construed, states an Eighth Amendment claim.
- Nothing was dismissed, so leave to amend was not at issue, and the order does not decide liability, defenses, or damages.
- Service on Warden Rojas and CDCR Secretary Macomber proceeds through the CDCR e-service program, with the Marshals Service serving any defendant who does not waive.
- The stated answer deadlines of 60 days after the waiver report or 21 days after Marshal service are subject to the stay, because no answer is due while the case is stayed under the bellwether order.
- Rose remains responsible for prosecuting the case, serving his filings on defendants, and promptly reporting address changes, and returned mail with no new address within sixty days can lead to dismissal without prejudice under Local Rule 3-11.
Why It Matters
This unpublished district court order is a routine screening and service order with limited precedential weight. It shows how the court handles a conditions-of-confinement complaint at the § 1915A stage, applying liberal construction to a pro se pleading and treating inadequate living space as a cognizable Eighth Amendment theory under Rhodes. Its practical significance lies in the coordinated handling of related prisoner cases. The case is related to McKenzie v. Borla and briefing is stayed under a bellwether order, so defendants' response obligations and the merits remain open until the stay is lifted.