# N Danny Joe Hirschfield, Plaintiff,
v. State ofCalifornia et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil ActionNo.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED OCT 1 72011 Clerk. U.S. District&Bankr Courts forthe Districtot

### COI~~~ra

This matter is before the Court on review ofplaintiffspro se complaint and application to proceed informapauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application and dismiss the complaint for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action "at any time" it determines that subject matterjurisdiction is wanting). Plaintiffis a resident ofCapitol Heights, Maryland, suing the State ofCalifornia and its Department ofMental Health, for, among other alleged wrongs, detaining him against his will "for certain periods at a time" over 10 years, Compi. at 2, and forcibly medicating him. See id. at 2-3. The Eleventh Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution immunizes a state from suit in federal court, unless immunity is waived. I See College Sav. Bank v. Florida PrepaidPostsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 675-76 (1999); Keenan v. Washington MetropolitanArea TransitAuthority, 643 F. Supp. 324, 327-28 (D.D.C. 1986) (citing cases). A waiver is found

I The amendment provides in pertinent part: "[t]hejudicial power ofthe United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one ofthe United States by Citizens ofanother State." U.S. Const. amend. XI. Itis long established that this amendment applies equally to suits brought by citizens against their own states. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 13-15 (1890). 

# 3"only where stated 'by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the test as [will] leave no room for any otherreasonable construction.' " Morris v. Washington MetropolitanArea TransitAuthority, 781 F.2d 218,221 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted). Plaintiffhas not alleged, and the complaint does not reveal, a basis from which the Court may find a waiver ofCalifornia's immunity, which generally extends to its agencies. Therefore, the complaint will be dismissed. See CitizensAlertRegardingEnvironment v. EPA, 102 Fed. Appx. 167, 169 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ("As CARE has sued these state agencies directly rather than pursuing its claim[s]
... against individual state officers, the Eleventh Amendment deprives the court of jurisdiction as there is no indicationthat Congress has abrogated, or the state waived, sovereign immunity towards suits ofthis kind.") (citation omitted).2 A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

October 

# 13 ,2011

2 Even ifplaintiffcould establish a waiver ofimmunity, the complaint arises from events that allegedly took place in Los Angeles, California, and, thus, reveals no connection to the District ofColumbia. Hence, thisjudicial district would not be the propervenue for litigating plaintiffs claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (designating the proper venue under the circumstances presented as the location where the defendants reside or where a substantial part of the events occurred); see also, e.g., Hirschfield v. Us. Dep 'fof HomelandSecurity, Civ. No. 11- 1441 (UNA) (D.D.C. Aug. 8,2011) (transferring plaintiffs earlier submitted case to the Central District ofCalifornia). 2