(PC) Johnson v. California Department of Corrections ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRELL EUGENE JOHNSON, No. 2:21-CV-2348-WBS-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 15 AND REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s original complaint, ECF No. 1. 20 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 21 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 23 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 24 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 25 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 26 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 27 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 28 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 1 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 2 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege 3 with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 4 claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 5 impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 6 and conclusory. 7 8 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 9 Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) the California Department of 10 Corrections and Rehabilitation—Sacramento; (2) Kathleen Allen, secretary of California 11 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR); and (3) Warden of Solano State Prison. 12 ECF No. 1, pg. 2. Plaintiff alleges that he was transferred to Solano State Prison during the 13 COVID-19 pandemic in violation of Governor Newsome’s order and contracted COVID-19. Id. 14 at 3. 15 16 II. DISCUSSION 17 In so far as Plaintiff is suing the Defendant Warden and Defendant Kathleen Allen 18 in their individual capacity, Plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim sufficient to survive 19 screening. However, Plaintiff’s complaint is not without defect. Specifically, the Eleventh 20 Amendment prohibits suits against states, state agencies, and state officials acting in their official 21 capacities. 22 The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits 23 brought against a state both by its own citizens, as well as by citizens of other states. See Brooks 24 v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991). This prohibition 25 extends to suits against states themselves, and to suits against state agencies. See Lucas v. Dep’t 26 of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th 27 Cir. 1989). A state’s agency responsible for incarceration and correction of prisoners is a state 28 agency for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 1 (1978) (per curiam); Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398-99 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc). 2 The Eleventh Amendment also bars actions seeking damages from state officials 3 acting in their official capacities. See Eaglesmith v. Ward, 73 F.3d 857, 859 (9th Cir. 1995); Pena 4 v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 472 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). The Eleventh Amendment does not, 5 however, bar suits against state officials acting in their personal capacities. See id. Under the 6 doctrine of Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits for 7 prospective declaratory or injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities. See 8 Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 1997). The Eleventh Amendment also does 9 not bar suits against cities and counties. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 10 n.54 (1978). 11 Plaintiff lists the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as a 12 defendant in this case. However, as CDCR is a state agency, the CDCR is immune from suit. 13 Additionally, in so far as Plaintiff is suing Defendants Allen and the Warden in their official 14 capacity, those Defendants are immune from suit. 15 16 III. CONCLUSION 17 Plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim sufficient to survive the screening 18 stage. A service order will be issued as to that claim. Further, because it does not appear possible 19 that the deficiencies identified herein can be cured by amending the complaint, Plaintiff is not 20 entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 21 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 22 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that CDCR be dismissed 23 from this case. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 25 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 27 objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 28 objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 1 | Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 2 3 4 | Dated: March 23, 2022 Ssvcqo_ 5 DENNIS M. COTA 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ; 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28