Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04661/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04661-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESTER WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PRISON

TERMS and DEBRA STAR, 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-4661 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket Nos. 2, 4)

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at Deuel Correctional Facility, in Tracy,

California, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from

the alleged bias of Debra Star, a Commissioner of the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation in deciding 4 out of the Plaintiff’s last 5 parole

hearings, which were all denied. Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in

forma pauperis (docket nos. 2, 4). Plaintiff’s application is GRANTED in a separate

order filed simultaneously.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff alleges that his civil rights have been “grossly violated” by the

Defendants due to Commissioner Star’s bias against Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that

because Defendant Star presided over his hearings, held on November 25, 2004, April

1, 2005, October 7, 2005 and August 14, 2007, she is “unable to provide me with a

neutral and detached hearing.” Plaintiff seeks release or “a new hearing with an

Case 3:07-cv-04661-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/25/08 Page 1 of 5
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

impartial jury of my peers.”

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify

any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se

pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d

696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the

United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a

person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

1. Eleventh Amendment Immunity

 In this case, Plaintiff has sued the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). However, Plaintiff’s suit against this Defendant is barred. 

The Eleventh Amendment bars from the federal courts suits against a state by its own

citizens, citizens of another state or citizens or subjects of any foreign state. See

Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 241 (1985); Alabama v. Pugh, 438

U.S. 781, 782 (1978); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 676-77 (1974). Unless a state

has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity or Congress has overridden it, a state

cannot be sued regardless of the relief sought. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159,

167 n.14 (1985) (citing Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978)); Confederated Tribes

& Bands v. Locke, 176 F.3d 467, 469 (9th Cir. 1999). This Eleventh Amendment

immunity extends to suits against a state agency, see, e.g., Simmons v. Sacramento

Case 3:07-cv-04661-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/25/08 Page 2 of 5
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

County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156,1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (11th Amendment bars

suit against state superior court and its employees); Hyland v. Wonder, 117 F.3d 405,

413 (9th Cir.), amended, 127 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 1997) (state case law and

constitutional provisions make clear that California Superior Court is state agency). 

See, also, Allison v. California Adult Authority, 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1969). 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against CDCR are DISMISSED.

2. Claims Against Commissioner Star

Plaintiff’s complaint also names Commissioner Star, who presided over

Plaintiff’s parole hearings as a Defendant in this action. However, this Defendant is

also immune from suit.

Absolute immunity extends to federal and state agency officials when they

preside over hearings, initiate agency adjudication, or otherwise perform functions

analogous to judges and prosecutors. See Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 514-15

(1978) (extending absolute immunity to Department of Agriculture officials); Buckles

v. King County, 191 F.3d 1127, 1136 (9th Cir. 1999) (extending absolute immunity to

Washington Growth Management Board, a real estate zoning board); Romano v. Bible,

169 F.3d 1182, 1186-88 (9th Cir. 1999) (extending absolute immunity to Nevada

Gaming Control Board officials). Absolute immunity is extended to agency officials

who perform prosecutorial and judicial functions because administrative proceedings

are usually adversarial in nature and provide many of the same features and safeguards

that are provided in court. See Butz, 438 U.S. at 513.

These characteristics of the judicial process are sufficient to render the role of

the administrative law judge “functionally comparable” to that of a judge: an

adversarial proceeding, a decision-maker insulated from political influence, a decision

based on evidence submitted by the parties, and a decision provided to the parties on

all of the issues of fact and law. See id. Because Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a

Case 3:07-cv-04661-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/25/08 Page 3 of 5
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

claim upon which relief may be granted, no leave to amend will be granted and

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED. 

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED for the

reasons set forth above. The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 25, 2008 JEFFREY S. WHITE

 United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

Case 3:07-cv-04661-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/25/08 Page 4 of 5
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 5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESTER WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CA BOARD OF PRISON TERMS et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-04661 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 25, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Lester L. Williams

E09481

P.O. Box 20

Tracy, CA 95378-0600

Dated: January 25, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-04661-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/25/08 Page 5 of 5