# McWilliams

> District Court, N.D. California · May 8, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11373501

## Case

- **Full name:** Nathan B. McWilliams v. Cynthia Rojas, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** May 8, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11373501

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 NATHAN B. MCWILLIAMS, Case No. 26-cv-02984-TLT

8 Plaintiff,
ORDER OF SERVICE; DENYING
9 v. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
10 CYNTHIA ROJAS, et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 9, 11
Defendants.
11

12
13 Plaintiff, a prisoner at Correctional Training Facility (CTF), filed a pro se civil rights
14 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was related to 25-cv-02820-TLT, McKenzie v. Borla,
15 which raises similar or identical allegations, and stayed pending resolution of McKenzie, which
16 was set as a bellwether case. Plaintiff has agreed to the bellwether process. See Dkt. No. 9 at 3.
17 The complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
18 Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
19 For the reasons stated below, the complaint is ordered served on defendants Rojas and
20 Macomber and plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 9) is denied.
21 DISCUSSION
22 A. Standard of Review
23 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks
24 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
25 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims
26 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek
27 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
1 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020).
2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the
3 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not
4 necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
5 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted).
6 “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more
7 than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
8 do. . .. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
9 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must
10 proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. All or part
11 of a complaint filed by a prisoner may be dismissed sua sponte if the prisoner’s claims lack an
12 arguable basis in either law or in fact.
13 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1)
14 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the
15 alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v.
16 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
17 B. Plaintiff’s Claims
18 The complaint names the CTF Warden Cynthia Rojas and the Secretary of the California
19 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Jefferey Macomber as defendants and
20 alleges that defendants have violated plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights by housing him in an
21 unconstitutionally small double cell with another prisoner since June 26, 2022. He alleges his cell
22 has only 19 square feet of unencumbered space, or only 9.5 square feet per prisoner, which
23 violates CDCR’s guidelines and the Constitution. He alleges prisoners at CTF have been double-
24 celled in certain North Yard buildings since 2011 although the rooms in these buildings were not
25 built to be double cells.
26 Plaintiff seeks damages.
27 C. Analysis
1 have the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347
2 (1981). “[T]he Eighth Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency
3 that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Id. at 346 (internal quotation marks omitted).
4 Liberally construed, plaintiff has stated an Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Rojas and
5 Macomber for inadequate living space.
6 D. Motion for preliminary injunction
7 Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction, stating that his filing has been met with retaliatory
8 reprisal as correctional officers have used progressive disciplinary measures such as excessive
9 searches, verbal harassment, and property confiscation on him to force him to live with a cellmate.
10 He asks the court to order defendants, officers, agents, and successors to refrain from double-
11 celling him and grant him single-cell status. His motion identifies no specific details constituting
12 retaliation or disciplinary action against him personally.
13 Plaintiff also filed a separate request for the court to consider his motion for a preliminary
14 injunction, to which he attached a series of documents regarding grievances against Officer
15 Ramirez who he alleges targeted him with excessive searches. Dkt. No. 11. Plaintiff’s 1/31/2026
16 grievance alleges that Ramirez searched his cell eight times in the prior three months. He alleges
17 that Ramirez noticed him helping another prisoner with a grievance and “stared at [plaintiff] in an
18 intimidating fashion,” after which more searches and confiscations of property took place.
19 Ramirez referred to his legal work as “only talking trash,” and later asked “we good?” and said, “if
20 not you can 602 me—I know you like doing that.” Plaintiff attaches a cell search receipt dated
21 1/29/26 indicating no property confiscated, and one dated 1/31/26 indicating confiscation of a
22 bucket, a roll of small bags, cardboard, and plastic being used as a window covering.
23 Plaintiff has not met the standard for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining
24 order (TRO). A TRO preserves the status quo and prevents irreparable harm until a hearing can be
25 held on a preliminary injunction application. See Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters
26 & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). A temporary restraining order is an
27 “extraordinary remedy” that a court should award only when a plaintiff makes a clear showing that
1 substantive standards for a temporary restraining order are the same as those for a preliminary
2 injunction. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7
3 (9th Cir. 2001). A plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a
4 likelihood of irreparable harm that will result if an injunction is not issued, (3) the balance of
5 equities tips in favor of the plaintiff, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. See Winter, 555
6 U.S. at 20. The irreparable injury must be both likely and immediate. See id. at 22; see also
7 Caribbean Marine Servs. Co., Inc. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A plaintiff
8 must do more than merely allege imminent harm sufficient to establish standing; a plaintiff must
9 demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief.”).
10 Moreover, prior to issuing a preliminary injunction, notice to the adverse party is required.
11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). A preliminary injunction therefore generally will not issue before the
12 parties to the action are served. See Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727–28 (9th Cir. 1983). A
13 temporary restraining order (TRO) may issue without written or oral notice to the adverse party or
14 that party’s attorney if: (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by verified
15 complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before
16 the adverse party can be heard in opposition, and (2) the movant’s attorney (or the movant himself
17 in this case, as he proceeds pro se) certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the
18 reasons why it should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).
19 Plaintiff has not described any efforts he has made to provide notice of the motion to
20 defendants. In addition, he has not named Ramirez nor any other correctional officers as
21 defendants. A court only has jurisdiction to order injunctive relief against defendants in the lawsuit
22 in front of it that relates to the claims in the lawsuit. Plaintiff’s lawsuit alleges only that defendants
23 Rojas and Macomber violated his Eighth Amendment rights by double-celling him in an
24 unconstitutionally small cell; it does not allege retaliation claims against Ramirez. If plaintiff has
25 reason to believe that Ramirez has retaliated against him because of his filing grievances and/or
26 the current underlying lawsuit, he may seek to amend his complaint to add Ramirez and those
27 claims. If plaintiff has reason to believe that Ramirez has retaliated against him because of other
1 may file a separate lawsuit against Ramirez. Disciplinary action can only be considered retaliatory
2 if it is in response to protected activity. Refusing to double-cell in and of itself is not protected
3 activity; filing a lawsuit or grievance is protected activity.
4 Plaintiff has not demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that double-
5 celling in his cell is unconstitutional. See Dkt. No. 102 in McKenzie. There is no existing
6 precedent squarely placing the conditions he alleges outside of the bounds of the Constitution. The
7 Supreme Court in Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) overturned a district court’s finding
8 that double-celling was unconstitutional at an Ohio prison where the cells were 63 square feet
9 (including encumbered space) and prisoners had dayroom access from 6:30 AM to 9:30 PM.
10 Although plaintiff may ultimately be able to distinguish his case from Rhodes, he cannot at this
11 time, based on the allegations that he has made, demonstrate that he is likely to be able to do so.
12 The motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.
13 CONCLUSION
14 1. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.
15 2. Plaintiff has stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Rojas
16 and Macomber.
17 3. The Court ORDERS that service on the following defendants shall proceed under
18 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) e-service program for
19 civil rights cases from prisoners in the CDCR’s custody:
20 a. Cynthia Rojas, Warden of CTF
21 b. Jefferey Macomber, Secretary of CDCR
22 In accordance with the program, the Clerk is directed to serve on the CDCR via email the
23 following documents: the operative complaint (Dkt. No. 1), this Order of Service, a CDCR Report
24 of E-Service Waiver form, and a summons. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on the
25 plaintiff.
26 No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on the CDCR, the CDCR shall
27 provide the court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court which
1 the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) and which defendant(s) decline to waive service or
2 could not be reached. The CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service
3 Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 days, shall file with the Court
4 a waiver of service of process for the defendant(s) who are waiving service.
5 Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the Clerk shall prepare for each
6 defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver a
7 USM-285 Form. The Clerk shall provide to the USMS the completed USM-285 forms and copies
8 of this order, the summons, and the operative complaint for service upon each defendant who has
9 not waived service. The Clerk also shall provide the USMS a copy of the CDCR Report of E-
10 Service Waiver.
11 4. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12 requires defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and
13 complaint. If service is waived, this action will proceed as if defendants had been served on the
14 date that the waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(ii), defendants will not be
15 required to serve and file an answer before sixty (60) days from the date on which the CDCR
16 provides a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver to the California Attorney General’s
17 Office. (This allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of
18 summons is necessary.) If defendants have not waived service and have instead been served by
19 the USMS, then defendants shall serve and file an answer within twenty-one (21) days after being
20 served with the summons and complaint.
21 5. Defendants shall answer the complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of
22 Civil Procedure.
23 6. Dispositive briefing is currently stayed pending resolution of the McKenzie
24 bellwether case. After the Court resolves the motion to set a bellwether case, the Court will either
25 stay the non-bellwether cases (if it grants the motion) or set a briefing schedule in each of the
26 related cases (if it denies the motion).
27 7. All communications by plaintiff with the Court must be served on defendants or
] 8. It is plaintiffs responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court
2 || informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion.
3 Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11, a party proceeding pro se whose address changes
4 || while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of address specifying the new
5 address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss without prejudice a complaint when: (1) mail
6 || directed to the pro se party by the Court has been returned to the Court as not deliverable, and (2)
7 || the Court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written communication from the pro se
8 || party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b).
9 9. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be
10 || granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.
11 10. This order terminates Docket No. 11.
L2 IT IS SO ORDERED.
13 Dated: May 8, 2026
14

fe teen
= 16 United States District Judge
17

Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11373501. Public record. Not legal advice.