# Opinion

> District Court, E.D. California · March 23, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11378163

## Case

- **Full name:** Ryan Joel Hopson v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** March 23, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11378163

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RYAN JOEL HOPSON, Case No. 1:25-cv-00825-BAM (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO
13 v. ACTION
14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
CORRECTIONS AND DISMISS ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR
15 REHABILITATION, FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE
TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, AND
16 Defendant. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
17 (ECF No. 9)
18 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
19
20 I. Background
21 Plaintiff Ryan Joel Hopson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
22 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
23 On February 9, 2026, the Court screened the complaint and found that it failed to comply
24 with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and sought monetary relief from a defendant who is
25 immune from such relief. (ECF No. 9.) The Court issued an order granting Plaintiff leave to file
26 a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within thirty (30) days. (Id.) The
27 Court expressly warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in
28 a recommendation for dismissal of this action. (Id.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint
1 or otherwise communicate with the Court, and the deadline to do so has expired.
2 II. Failure to State a Claim
3 A. Screening Requirement and Standard
4 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
5 governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
6 § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous
7 or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary
8 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b).
9 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
10 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
11 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
12 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
13 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as
14 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
15 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
16 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires
17 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable
18 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret
19 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully
20 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility
21 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
22 B. Plaintiff’s Allegations
23 Plaintiff is currently housed at High Desert State Prison. He names the California
24 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) as the sole defendant.
25 Plaintiff asserts a claim for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment for a “data breach.”
26 He alleges as follows:

27 In January of 2022 an [unauthorized] user gained access to one of C.D.C.R.’s
platforms. By allowing this, CDCR has been negligent, violated; The Information
28 Practices act, Invasion of Privacy, breach of confidence, Confidentiality of Medical
1 Information act, Breach of Implied contract, Breach of the implied Covenant of
Good Faith and Fair dealing, unfair Business practices and unjust enrichment.
2
3 (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff further alleges that his personal, sensitive and medical information has
4 been compromised. (Id.) He indicates that he “was made aware that I was already envolved [sic]
5 in a case Thomas vs. CDCR in Jan. 2025 of wich [sic] I pulled out of.” (Id.) As relief, he seeks
6 “punitive damages and monetary compensation in the sum of 3,000,000.” (Id. at 4.)
7 C. Discussion
8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
9 Pursuant to Rule 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
10 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Detailed factual allegations
11 are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
12 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must
13 set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
14 its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations
15 are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–57; Moss,
16 572 F.3d at 969.
17 Plaintiff’s complaint is short, but it is not a plain statement of his claims. The complaint
18 fails to include sufficient allegations describing what happened, when it happened, and who was
19 involved. He claims an unauthorized user accessed one of CDCR’s platforms, but he does not
20 specify what type of platform was breached, how or by whom, or any other factual information
21 regarding his claim.
22 Eleventh Amendment
23 “The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal court against a state,
24 its agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities.” Aholelei v. Dep’t of Public
25 Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). Indeed, the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal
26 courts from hearing a Section 1983 lawsuit in which damages or injunctive relief is sought against
27 a state, its agencies (such as CDCR) or individual prisons, absent “a waiver by the state or a valid
28 congressional override. . . .” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). “The
1 Eleventh Amendment bars suits which seek either damages or injunctive relief against a state, ‘an
2 arm of the state,’ its instrumentalities, or its agencies.” See Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. City of
3 Lodi, Cal., 302 F.3d 928, 957 n.28 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation and citations omitted), cert.
4 denied, 538 U.S. 961 (2003). “The State of California has not waived its Eleventh Amendment
5 immunity with respect to claims brought under § 1983 in federal court. . . .” Dittman, 191 F.3d at
6 1025–26 (citing Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 241 (1985)); see also Brown v.
7 Cal. Dep’t. of Corrs., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding California Department of
8 Corrections and California Board of Prison Terms entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity).
9 Therefore, Plaintiff cannot pursue his claims for damages against CDCR in this action.
10 III. Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Obey a Court Order
11 A. Legal Standard
12 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with
13 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . .
14 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their
15 dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where
16 appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A
17 court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action,
18 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46
19 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,
20 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring
21 amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987)
22 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order).
23 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors:
24 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its
25 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of
26 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779
27 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988).
28 ///
1 B. Discussion
2 Here, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is overdue, and he has failed to comply with the
3 Court’s order. The Court cannot effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating his
4 case. Thus, the Court finds that both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.
5 The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a
6 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action.
7 Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs against
8 dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d
9 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose
10 responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes
11 progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products
12 Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
13 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in
14 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262;
15 Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s February 9, 2026 screening
16 order expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to file an amended complaint would result in a
17 recommendation of dismissal of this action. (ECF No. 9.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning
18 that dismissal could result from his noncompliance.
19 Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court that
20 would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further
21 unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in
22 this action, it appears that monetary sanctions will be of little use and the preclusion of evidence
23 or witnesses is likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case.
24 IV. Conclusion and Recommendation
25 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a
26 District Judge to this action.
27 Furthermore, the Court finds that dismissal is the appropriate sanction and HEREBY
28 RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim
1 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, for failure to obey a court order, and for Plaintiff’s failure to
2 prosecute this action.
3 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge
4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
5 (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written
6 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
7 Findings and Recommendation.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages or
8 include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page number if already in
9 the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limit may not be
10 considered. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result
11 in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v.
12 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394
13 (9th Cir. 1991)).
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15

16 Dated: March 23, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17

18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11378163. Public record. Not legal advice.