Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03409/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03409-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY L. HAMERTER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-03409 CRB

ORDER

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 

A court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in federal court without prepayment

of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable to pay

such fees or give security therefor. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff has submitted the

required documentation, and it is evident from his application that his assets and income are

insufficient to enable plaintiff to prosecute the action.

Viewing plaintiff’s application in isolation, it appears that he should be allowed to

proceed IFP. A court is under a continuing duty, however, to dismiss a case whenever it

determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which

relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-- (iii).

Case 3:07-cv-03409-CRB Document 4 Filed 08/03/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2007\3409\orderredismissal.wpd 2

Plaintiff’s complaint names as the only defendant the “State of California.” Of the ten

counts in his complaint, however, only three refer at all to the State of California. Count 5

alleges that the State of California is liable for “historical prejudice” against African

Americans who graduate with an advanced degree from a California State University. On

this claim plaintiff seeks restitution for college tuition, fees and monies plaintiff would have

earned had he “been treated fairly and given the opportunity for gainfully employment.” 

In Count 9 plaintiff recites 246 years of prejudice against African Americans and

asserts that the “State of California is liable for finding employment for the plaintiff.”

Count 10 alleges that all states in the United States have discriminated against African

Americans.

Plaintiff’s complaint does not state a claim against the State of California. First, the

claims for monetary damages are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Hyland v.

Wonder, 117 F.3d 405, 413 (9th Cir. 1997). Second, the Court is not aware of any law that

would otherwise permit the claims made by plaintiff against the State of California. 

Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: Aug. 3, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-03409-CRB Document 4 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 2