Pallazhco v. Acevedo

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RICARDO PALLAZHCO, Case No. 21-cv-00378-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS

10 A. ACEVEDO, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 35 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff Richardo Pallazcho brings this civil rights complaint against the California 14 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), and CDCR officers A. Acevedo and M. 15 Avila. CDCR moves to dismiss the claims against CDCR. (Dkt. No. 35.) Having carefully 16 considered the briefing, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, and GRANTS 17 CDCR’s motion to dismiss for the reasons stated below. 18 Plaintiff alleges a single cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) against 19 CDCR. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 33.) To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 20 elements: (1) a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) 21 that a “person” acting under the color of state law committed that violation. See West v. Atkins, 22 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 23 CDCR is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983. See Brown v. California 24 Dep’t. of Corr.,554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The district court correctly held that the 25 California Department of Corrections and the California Board of Prison Terms were entitled to 26 Eleventh Amendment immunity.”); Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 951 (9th Cir. 27 2004) (“State agencies . . . are not ‘persons’ within the meaning of § 1983, and are therefore not 1 Plaintiff's opposition is unpersuasive. First, contrary to Plaintiff's arguments, CDCR does 2 || not assert qualified immunity. Rather, CDCR asserts it is immune from Section 1983 claims 3 || because “Congress, in passing Section 1983, had no intention to disturb the States’ Eleventh 4 Amendment immunity.” Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). As 5 discussed above, CDCR is correct. Second, Plaintiff argues that CDCR is liable under Monell v. 6 || New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Plaintiff is mistaken. Under 7 || Monell, “[s]tates are protected by the Eleventh Amendment while municipalities are not.” 8 Will, 491 U.S. at 70 (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 690, n.54) (emphasis added). Again, as discussed 9 above, CDCR is a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Brown, 554 F.3d 10 |] at 750. 11 In sum, Plaintiff cannot assert a claim under Section 1983 against CDCR. Thus, that claim 12 || is dismissed. The Section 1983 claim against the individual officers remains. 5 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons stated above, CDCR’s motion to dismiss the claims against CDCR is 3 15 GRANTED. At the parties’ request, they are referred to Magistrate Judge Illman for a settlement 16 || conference to occur as soon as is convenient to Judge IIIman. The case management conference 3 17 scheduled for August 31, 2022 is continued to December 1, 2022. An updated joint case 18 || management conference statement is due one week in advance. 19 This Order disposes of Dkt. No. 35. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: August 30, 2022 22 23 Jegu st ty ACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE United States District Judge 25 26 27 28