Opinion
22-cv-04594-RS (PR)
01-05-2023
KEVIN LEE BARRIOS, Plaintiff, v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
R RICHARD SEEBORG CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In less than two months, plaintiff has filed five 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints in this action, each of which are disorderly and difficult to follow. In his latest complaint, he names as defendants the Contra Costa County District Attorney; the State of California; Google Corp.; the feminists of Stanford University; the Richmond Police Department; the El Cerrito Police Department; and the San Diego District Attorney. (Fifth Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 9 at 1.) The complaint, however, contains allegations against only the Contra Costa County District Attorney regarding some court criminal proceedings. (Id. at 2.)
The claims against the Contra Costa County District Attorney are DISMISSSED because the district attorney is immune from suit. A state prosecuting attorney enjoys absolute immunity from damages liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for his conduct in “pursuing a criminal prosecution” insofar as he acts within his role as an “advocate for the State” and his actions are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976).
Because plaintiff has not made any allegations against the other named defendants, they are DISMISSED from this action. Furthermore, the feminists of Stanford University and Google Corp. are private actors and cannot be held liable under § 1983. A private individual does not act under color of state law, an essential element of a § 1983 action. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). The State of California is immune from suit because the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution “bars suits which seek either damages or injunctive relief against a state, an ‘arm of the state,' its instrumentalities, or its agencies.” Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Any federal suit against the San Diego Police Department must be brought in the Southern District of California, not in this district. If plaintiff wishes to file suit against the El Cerrito Police Department and/or the Richmond Police Department, he must do so in separate civil rights actions.
Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 7.) The Clerk shall terminate Dkt. No. 7, enter judgment in favor of defendants, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.