Opinion
21-cv-00378-JSC
08-30-2022
RICARDO PALLAZHCO, Plaintiff, v. A. ACEVEDO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS RE: DKT. NO. 35
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Richardo Pallazcho brings this civil rights complaint against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), and CDCR officers A. Acevedo and M. Avila. CDCR moves to dismiss the claims against CDCR. (Dkt. No. 35.) Having carefully considered the briefing, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, and GRANTS CDCR's motion to dismiss for the reasons stated below.
Plaintiff alleges a single cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) against CDCR. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 33.) To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) that a “person” acting under the color of state law committed that violation. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
CDCR is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983. See Brown v. California Dep't. of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The district court correctly held that the California Department of Corrections and the California Board of Prison Terms were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.”); Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 951 (9th Cir. 2004) (“State agencies . . . are not ‘persons' within the meaning of § 1983, and are therefore not amenable to suit under that statute.”). Thus, Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim against CDCR fails.
Plaintiff's opposition is unpersuasive. First, contrary to Plaintiff's arguments, CDCR does not assert qualified immunity. Rather, CDCR asserts it is immune from Section 1983 claims because “Congress, in passing Section 1983, had no intention to disturb the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). As discussed above, CDCR is correct. Second, Plaintiff argues that CDCR is liable under Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Plaintiff is mistaken. Under Monell, “[s]tates are protected by the Eleventh Amendment while municipalities are not.” Will, 491 U.S. at 70 (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 690, n.54) (emphasis added). Again, as discussed above, CDCR is a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Brown, 554 F.3d at 750.
In sum, Plaintiff cannot assert a claim under Section 1983 against CDCR. Thus, that claim is dismissed. The Section 1983 claim against the individual officers remains.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, CDCR's motion to dismiss the claims against CDCR is GRANTED. At the parties' request, they are referred to Magistrate Judge Illman for a settlement conference to occur as soon as is convenient to Judge Illman. The case management conference scheduled for August 31, 2022 is continued to December 1, 2022. An updated joint case management conference statement is due one week in advance.
This Order disposes of Dkt. No. 35.
IT IS SO ORDERED.