From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sinha v. State

United States District Court, Northern District of California
May 30, 2024
24-cv-00046-HSG (N.D. Cal. May. 30, 2024)

Opinion

24-cv-00046-HSG

05-30-2024

RAJESH K. SINHA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant.


ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RE: DKT. NO. 8

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Rajesh K. Sinha, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this action against the State of California. See Dkt. Nos. 1 & 3. On March 8, 2024, Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim issued an order directing that the case be reassigned to a district judge and a report and recommendation that the action be dismissed because Plaintiff's lawsuit is barred by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Dkt. No. 8 (the “Report and Recommendation”). Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, asserting that the lawsuit may proceed notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment. See Dkt. No. 14.

“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Kim recommended that the Court dismiss this action because Plaintiff has brought suit against the State of California, but California has not consented to being sued and Congress has not abrogated California's sovereign immunity for the claims Plaintiff brings. See Dkt. No. 8 at 2. Upon a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, however, the Court cannot definitively conclude at the screening stage that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars the entirety of Plaintiff's lawsuit. Dismissal of this case hinges on the applicability of sovereign immunity as a defense, and the viability of this defense is challenging to ascertain when the Defendant has not been served with or responded to Plaintiff's complaint. While the Court has significant skepticism that Plaintiff can overcome the sovereign immunity bar described by Judge Kim under these circumstances, in an abundance of caution, the Court DECLINES to adopt the Report and Recommendation. The Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of Court issue summons and that the U.S. Marshal serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint (Dkt. No. 1), with all corresponding attachments, and a copy of this order upon the Office of the Attorney General at 1300 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. This order TERMINATES AS MOOT Plaintiff's motion for leave to file additional information in opposition to the Report and Recommendation. Dkt. No. 18.

All references to page numbers in filings are to the ECF pagination at the top of the document.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Sinha v. State

United States District Court, Northern District of California
May 30, 2024
24-cv-00046-HSG (N.D. Cal. May. 30, 2024)
Case details for

Sinha v. State

Case Details

Full title:RAJESH K. SINHA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: May 30, 2024

Citations

24-cv-00046-HSG (N.D. Cal. May. 30, 2024)