Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00379/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00379-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT EUGENE ROJAS,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR 

COURT, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-CV-0379-KJM-DMC-P

ORDER

 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.1

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s original complaint, ECF No. 1. 

 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 

1

 At the time Plaintiff initiated this action, he was incarcerated at the Sacramento County Jail. 

Plaintiff has since been released. 

Case 2:22-cv-00379-DJC-DMC Document 12 Filed 11/22/22 Page 1 of 4
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 

2

means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 

1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 

complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 

rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege 

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 

claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 

impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 

and conclusory. 

I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

 Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) the Sacramento County Superior 

Court; (2) the County of Sacramento; (3) the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office; and 

(4) the Sacramento County Criminal Defender Defense Panel. Plaintiff alleges a number of 

constitutional claims related to his confinement in the Sacramento County Jail as a pre-trial 

detainee. These range from interference with mail, interference with access to the courts, 

interference with attorney-client privilege, and conditions of confinement claims. Plaintiff also 

alleges claims against the county prosecutor’s office and, apparently, the criminal defense panel, 

related to a criminal case against him. Plaintiff alleges that he has been wrongfully denied bail 

and wrongfully incarcerated. Plaintiff further appears to allege violations of his rights to counsel, 

to an adequate defense, and to a speedy trial. 

II. DISCUSSION

 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint is generally well-plead, including 

sufficient allegations of custom and policy to support municipal liability. Service therefore 

appears to be appropriate as against the County of Sacramento and its subsidiary agency 

defendants. Plaintiff’s complaint, however, is deficient as against the Sacramento County 

Superior Court because that entity is an arm of the state and, as such, is immune from suit under 

the Eleventh Amendment. Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff intends to hold individuals liable, the 

Case 2:22-cv-00379-DJC-DMC Document 12 Filed 11/22/22 Page 2 of 4
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 

3

complaint is insufficient because his allegations do not establish a causal link to any individual. 

A. Eleventh Amendment Immunity

 The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought 

against a state both by its own citizens, as well as by citizens of other states. See Brooks v. 

Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991). This prohibition 

extends to suits against states themselves, and to suits against state agencies. See Lucas v. Dep’t 

of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th 

Cir. 1989). 

 Here, Plaintiff has named as a defendant the Sacramento County Superior Court, 

apparently under the impression that this is a county entity. The Sacramento County Superior 

Court, however, is an arm of the Superior Court of the Sate of California, which is in turn an arm 

of the State of California. As such, the state court is immune from suit. 

B. Causal Link

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual 

connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See

Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A 

person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of 

§ 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform 

an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations 

concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See

Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth 

specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional 

deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 The Court provides the above context to the extent Plaintiff intends to hold 

individuals liable for the various violations alleged in the complaint. If he so intends, the Court 

will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to amend to allege the particular conduct of any individuals 

identified. 

Case 2:22-cv-00379-DJC-DMC Document 12 Filed 11/22/22 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

III. CONCLUSION

 Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by 

amending the complaint, Plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 

1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an 

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 

1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, if Plaintiff amends the complaint, the Court cannot refer to the 

prior pleading in order to make Plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An 

amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 

 If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must demonstrate how the 

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how 

each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection 

between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

 Because the complaint appears to otherwise state cognizable claims, if no amended 

complaint is filed within the time allowed therefor, the Court will issue findings and 

recommendations that the claims identified herein as defective be dismissed, as well as such 

further orders as are necessary for service of process as to the cognizable claims.

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a first amended 

complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order. 

Dated: November 18, 2022 

____________________________________ 

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00379-DJC-DMC Document 12 Filed 11/22/22 Page 4 of 4