Opinion

Jose Cosme Sandoval v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Court
District Court, C.D. California
Filed
Jan 31, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 16.4%

“A trial court may act on its own initiative to note the inadequacy of a complaint and dismiss it for failure to state a claim.”

How later courts described this case

  • “A trial court may act on its own initiative to note the inadequacy of a complaint and dismiss it for failure to state a claim.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Case 2:23-cv-00532-JLS-SK Document 4 Filed 01/31/23 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:23-cv-00532-JLS (SK) Date: January 31, 2023

Title Jose Cosme Sandoval v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab. et al.

Present: The Honorable: Steve Kim, United States Magistrate Judge

Connie Chung n/a

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None present None present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff is a former California state inmate who seeks to recover $50 million

from each of three state correctional agencies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for not releasing

him on parole sooner. (ECF 1 at 1-5). But the named defendants—the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the California Board of Parole Hearings,

and the California Board of Prison Terms—are immune from such damages suit under

the Eleventh Amendment. See Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483

U.S. 468, 472-74 (1987); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99-

100, 106 (1984); Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 1999); Brown

v. California Dep’t. of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff cannot

possibly win relief from these state agencies under § 1983. See Sparling v. Hoffman

Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988).

Plaintiff is thus ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before February 14,

2023, why his complaint should not be dismissed. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better

Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (court may dismiss at any time a complaint “foreclosed by

prior decisions”); Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361 (9th Cir. 1981) (“A trial court may act

on its own initiative to note the inadequacy of a complaint and dismiss it for failure to

state a claim.”). Plaintiff may satisfy this order by filing a notice of voluntary dismissal

without prejudice using the attached form CV-09. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). If he does

so, the Court—in its discretion—will instruct the Clerk of Court to refund him the paid

civil filing fees, even though such fees are otherwise nonrefundable. But if Plaintiff files

no notice of voluntary dismissal or other written response by February 14, 2023, the

Court may involuntarily dismiss the action for lack of prosecution with no refund of paid

civil filing fees. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 41-1.

CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes – General Page 1 of 1

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.