N 

Danny Joe Hirschfield, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

State of California et al. , 

Defendants. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

OCT 1 7 2011 

Clerk. U.S. District & Bankr 

Courts for the District ot COI~~~ra 

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and application 

to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiff s application and dismiss the 

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court 

to dismiss an action "at any time" it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting). 

Plaintiff is a resident of Capitol Heights, Maryland, suing the State of California and its 

Department of Mental 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 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution immunizes a state from suit in federal 

court, unless immunity is waived. I See College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary 

Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 675-76 (1999); Keenan v. Washington Metropolitan Area 

Transit Authority, 643 F. Supp. 324, 327-28 (D.D.C. 1986) (citing cases). A waiver is found 

I The amendment provides in pertinent part: "[t]he judicial power of the 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 of another State." U.S. Const. amend. XI. It is 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 other reasonable construction.' " Morris v. Washington 

Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 781 F.2d 218,221 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (internal citations 

omitted). 

Plaintiff has not alleged, and the complaint does not reveal, a basis from which the Court 

may find a waiver of California's immunity, which generally extends to its agencies. Therefore, 

the complaint will be dismissed. See Citizens Alert Regarding Environment 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 indication that Congress has abrogated, or the state waived, 

sovereign immunity towards suits of this kind.") (citation omitted).2 A separate Order of 

dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

October 13 ,2011 

2 Even if plaintiff could establish a waiver of immunity, the complaint arises from events 

that allegedly took place in Los Angeles, California, and, thus, reveals no connection to the 

District of Columbia. Hence, this judicial district would not be the proper venue 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 'f of Homeland Security, Civ. No. 11-

1441 (UNA) (D.D.C. Aug. 8,2011) (transferring plaintiffs earlier submitted case to the Central 

District of California). 

2