The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 ROBERT EUGENE ROJAS, Case No. 22-cv-03926-JSW
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
9
10 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION AND REHABILITATION,
11
Defendant.
12
13 INTRODUCTION
14 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint under
15 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”).
16 He is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons discussed
17 below, the case is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.
18 STANDARD OF REVIEW
19 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
20 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
21 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims
22 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek
23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se
24 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th
25 Cir. 1990).
26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the
27 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the
1 which it rests.""" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 8. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although
2 || inorder 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.” Jd. 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
5 13 Plaintiff claims that a wide variety of conditions at San Quentin State Prison, California
14 State Prison, Sacramento, and the California Medical Facility violated his constitutional rights.
3 15 The CDCR is the sole Defendant. The Eleventh Amendment bars from the federal courts suits
a 16 against the CDCR. Brown v. Cal. Dep't of Corrs., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009).
3 17 Accordingly, Plaintiff may not bring his claims against the CDCR in federal court.
CONCLUSION
19 For the foregoing reasons, the case is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which
20 || relief may be granted.
21 The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
22 IT IS SO ORDERED.
23 Dated: October 6, 2022
a |
24 ff
lh : L
6 J EEFREY S. WHITE
ff “ye State, istrict Judge
27 L/
28