Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01353/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01353-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD E. JACKSON, III,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv1353-LAB (NLS)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

This order amends Docket no. 3—the previous order of dismissal in this case. The

clerk is directed replace Docket no. 3 with this order, and vacate the entry of clerk's judgment

(Docket no. 4.)

Jackson brought this civil rights lawsuit against the State of California pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket no. 1.) Jackson didn't pay the civil filing fees required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1914(a) to commence a civil action; instead he has filed a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (Docket no. 2.) 

The IFP application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However,

a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not

complete the inquiry required by the statute. "A district court may deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the

action is frivolous or without merit." Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th

Cir.1998) (quotation omitted).

- 1 - 15cv1353

Case 3:15-cv-01353-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 06/30/15 Page 1 of 2
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

The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal jurisdiction over claims brought against

a state and its agencies unless the state consents to suit. Pennhurst State School & Hosp.

v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). The State of California is the only defendant that

Jackson has named in this case. (Docket no. 1.) "The State of California has not waived its

Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to claims brought under § 1983 in federal court,

and the Supreme Court has held that § 1983 was not intended to abrogate a State's Eleventh

Amendment immunity." Dittman v. State of California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025–26 (9th Cir.

1999) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Thus, Jackson can't bring suit against

California under § 1983. Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 951 (9th Cir. 2004) ("State

agencies . . . are not 'persons 'within the meaning of § 1983, and are therefore not amenable

to suit under that statute."). 

This case is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. If Jackson thinks he can

successfully amend his complaint to name a proper defendant, he must seek leave by ex

parte motion no later than August 10, 2015. His proposed amended complaint must be

attached as an exhibit to the motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 3, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 15cv1353

Case 3:15-cv-01353-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 06/30/15 Page 2 of 2