Grissom v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAMION E. GRISSOM, Case No. 22-cv-06024-JSW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9 10 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 11 REHABILITATION, Defendant. 12 INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff, an inmate in the Sonoma County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 14 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). 15 He is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons discussed 16 below, the case is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. 17 STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 19 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 20 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 21 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 23 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 24 Cir. 1990). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the 26 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the 27 1 which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although 2 in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's 3 obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and 4 conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . 5 Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell 6 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint 7 must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974. 8 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 9 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 10 alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 11 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 12 DISCUSSION 13 Plaintiff claims that the CDCR notified him of a security breach in their computer system 14 that may have resulted in the leak of his personal medical information. Plaintiff alleges that his 15 credit, housing, public benefits, and employment prospects may have been adversely affected as a 16 result. The CDCR is the sole Defendant. 17 Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. First, the Eleventh 18 Amendment bars from the federal courts suits against the CDCR for money damages, which 19 Plaintiff seeks. See Brown v. Cal. Dep't of Corrs., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009). Second, 20 Plaintiff does not cite, and the Court is not aware of, any constitutional right or other federal law 21 that the security breach violated that provides Plaintiff with a cognizable cause of action. See 22 Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569, 571–72 (5th Cir. 2006) (the Health Insurance Potability and 23 Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) does not provide a private cause of action). 24 // 25 // 26 27 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the case is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which 3 relief may be granted. 4 The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: December 8, 2022 7 ( i ¥ As 8 XN LA Lotus AEFF EY S. WHITE 9 Unitef/States Dyftrict Judge 10 / 11 12 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28