Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JIMMIE EARL JONES, III, No. 2:25-cv-3157 CSK P

12 Plaintiff, ORDER

13 v.

14 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

17 I. INTRODUCTION

18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

19 § 1983 and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This

20 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

21 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

22 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

23 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C.

24 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in

25 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct

26 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and

27 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments

28 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. These

1 payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the

2 amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C.

3 § 1915(b)(2).

4 As discussed below, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.

5 II. SCREENING STANDARDS

6 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

7 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

8 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally

9 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

10 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

11 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

12 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th

13 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an

14 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

15 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

16 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

17 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.

18 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably

19 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at

20 1227.

21 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain

22 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

23 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic

24 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

25 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a

26 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations

27 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555.

28 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the

1 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v.

2 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal

3 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as

4 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the

5 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236

6 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

7 III. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

8 Named as defendants are the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

9 (“CDCR”), the California Correctional Health Care Services and the Medical Board of California.

10 (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff’s complaint contains three claims for relief.

11 In claim one, plaintiff claims violation of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy, the

12 Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and the California Information Practices Act. (Id. at

13 3.) Plaintiff claims that in January 2022, Health Care employees lost a laptop computer

14 containing plaintiff’s personal information. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that he excluded himself from a

15 class action lawsuit regarding this data breach so that plaintiff could pursue his own claims

16 regarding this incident “including negligence on my personal information.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges

17 that as a result of this data breach, plaintiff’s personal information has been compromised. (Id.)

18 Plaintiff alleges that he is a victim of IRS fraud and other fraud issues based on the alleged data

19 breach. (Id.) Plaintiff also claims that his credit score has been damaged. (Id.)

20 In claim two, plaintiff claims violation of his Eighth Amendment right to personal safety

21 and medical services, the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, the Fourth Amendment

22 right to privacy and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”). (Id. at

23 4.) These claims appear based on the same facts alleged in support of claim one. (Id.) Plaintiff

24 also alleges that he was the victim of identity theft as a result of the alleged data breach. (Id.)

25 In claim three, plaintiff alleges violation of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy and

26 the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. (Id. at 5.) These claims appear based on the same facts

27 alleged in support of claim one. (Id.)

28 As relief, plaintiff seeks money damages. (Id. at 6.)

1 IV. DISCUSSION

2 For the following reasons, plaintiff’s federal and state law claims against defendants

3 CDCR, California Correctional Health Care Services and the Medical Board of California are

4 barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The Eleventh Amendment bars any suit against a state or

5 state agency absent a valid waiver or abrogation of its sovereign immunity. See Seminole Tribe

6 of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 (1890). “The

7 State of California has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to claims

8 brought under § 1983 in federal court.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (9th Cir.

9 1999). A suit against CDCR is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Brown v. California

10 Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009). Defendants California Correctional Health

11 Care Services and Medical Board of California are state agencies, and thus, are immune from

12 suit. See Diaz v. CDCR, 2017 WL 1079947, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017) (claims against

13 California Correctional Health Care Services barred by the Eleventh Amendment); Rhee v.

14 Medical Board of California, 2019 WL 4025002, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2019) (claims against

15 Medical Board of California barred by Eleventh Amendment). Plaintiff’s state law claims against

16 defendants are also barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp.

17 v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to state law

18 claims brought in federal court); Ashker v. Cal. Dep’t. of Corrections, 112 F.3d 392, 394 (9th Cir.

19 1997) (noting suit against CDCR arising under state law would be barred by the Eleventh

20 Amendment).

21 Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed because all claims raised against the named defendants

22 are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

23 V. LEAVE TO AMEND

24 If plaintiff files an amended complaint, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a

25 prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires

26 that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This

27 requirement exists because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original

28 complaint. See Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an

1 | ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”

2 || (internal citation omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no

3 || longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

4 || complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

5 | VI. CONCLUSION

6 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7 1. Plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.

8 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff

9 || is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

10 | § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the

11 | Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently

12 || herewith.

13 3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.

14 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached

15 || Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:

16 a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

17 b. An original of the Amended Complaint.

18 | Plaintiff's amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the

19 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must

20 || also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.”

21 || Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of

22 || this action.

23

24 || Dated: November 10, 2025 A aA

Aan Spe |

CHI SOO KIM

26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27

3g Jone3157.14/2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JIMMIE EARL JONES, III, No. 2:25-cv-3157 CSK P

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

14 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

17

18 Plaintiff submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order

19 filed on ______________ (date).

20

21 Amended Complaint

22 (Check this box if submitting an Amended Complaint)

23 DATED:

________________________________

24 Plaintiff

25

26

27

28