# Jose Cosme Sandoval v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

> District Court, C.D. California · January 31, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9982294

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** January 31, 2023
- **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/9982294

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9982294. Public record. Not legal advice.