Opinion
1:21-cv-00064-NE-JLT (PC)
12-27-2021
MICHAEL JAMES RYLES, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION
(Doc. No. 7)
Clerk of the Court to close the case.
Plaintiff Michael James Ryles is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On November 30, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the action be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. No. 10.) In particular, the magistrate judge found the following: plaintiff was not entitled to compassionate release; claims against defendants California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation and the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran State Prison are barred under Eleventh Amendment immunity; the complaint lacks sufficient allegations against the warden; and plaintiff may not seek damages for mental or emotional injury absent a prior showing of physical injury. Id.
Nothing in this order should be construed to suggest that the federal compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), applies to plaintiff, who is serving a sentence imposed under state law.
In the discussion, section III(C) is labeled as “Qualified Immunity” and appears to be a scrivener's error. Qualified immunity “is a defense available only to government officials sued in their individual capacities. It is not available to those sued only in their official capacities.” Cmty. House, Inc. v. City of Boise, 623 F.3d 945, 965 (9th Cir. 2010). Section III(C) would have been more appropriately styled as addressing “Eleventh Circuit Immunity.” Because this error is non-substantive, the court nonetheless adopts this portion of the findings and recommendations.
The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and provided him fourteen (14) days to file objections thereto. Plaintiff has not filed any objections, and the time do so has passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. The only forms of relief requested (release from custody and damages for mental or emotional injury) are unavailable to plaintiff under § 1983.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 30, 2021, (Doc. No. 7), are adopted in full;
2. This action is dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiffs failure to state a claim; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purposes of closure and then to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.