Source: https://id.scribd.com/document/42239577/Buza-v-CDCR-1983-MTD
Timestamp: 2019-08-19 16:13:09
Document Index: 90195655

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1985', '§ 1986', '§ 241', '§ 242', '§ 1341', '§ 1983', '§ 1985', '§ 1986', '§ 241', '§ 242', '§ 1341', '§ 241']

Buza v. CDCR 1983 MTD | Putusan Default | Kekebalan Kedaulatan
simpanSimpan Buza v. CDCR 1983 MTD Untuk Nanti
Case5:10-cv-00326-LHK Document25 Filed10/27/10 Page1 of 4
MARK S. BUZA, ) Case No.: 10-CV-00326-LHK
Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
12 v. ) DEFAULT JUDGMENT; DISMISSING
) COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
13 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF )
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, )
17 Plaintiff Mark S. Buza, proceeding pro se,1 moves for default judgment in this action
18 against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Pursuant to Local
19 Civil Rule 7-1(b), the Court concludes that this motion is appropriate for determination without
20 oral argument. Having considered Plaintiff’s submissions and the relevant law, the Court DENIES
21 Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and DISMISSES the Complaint with prejudice. The
22 motion hearing scheduled for November 5, 2010, is hereby VACATED.
23 I. Background
24 On July 21, 2009, Plaintiff Mark S. Buza entered San Quentin State Prison as a prison
25 inmate. Compl. ¶ 1. Upon entry, he was given two options for handling the personal property in
27 Should Plaintiff need assistance with this Order or his claims, he is directed to seek assistance
from the Federal Legal Assistance Self-Help Center. Help is provided by appointment only. To
28 make an appointment, either sign up at the Center, located on the 4th Floor of the Federal
Courthouse in San Jose, Room 4093, or call (408) 297-1480.
Case No.: 10-CV-00326-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT; DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
Case5:10-cv-00326-LHK Document25 Filed10/27/10 Page2 of 4
1 his possession. For a charge of five dollars, he could have his personal belongings shipped to an
2 individual outside the prison; otherwise, his property would be deemed donated to an outside
3 organization. Id. Because Plaintiff had no individual or address to send his property to, his
4 belongings were placed in a bin and designated “donated.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that CDCR’s
5 confiscation and disposal of his personal property in this manner violated his civil rights, as well as
6 several federal criminal laws. Accordingly, on January 25, 2010, Plaintiff filed this action in
7 federal court, alleging the following claims for relief: violations of Plaintiff’s Fourth, Fifth, and
8 Fourteenth Amendment rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; conspiracy to interfere with
9 Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985; failure to prevent the violation of
10 Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1986; criminal conspiracy against
11 Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 241; willful deprivation of rights under
12 color of law, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 242; and frauds and swindles, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
13 Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and on March 4, 2010, the United
14 State Marshals Service effected service on Defendant CDCR by certified mail. Executed
15 Summons, ECF No. 9. On March 15, 2010, the Marshals Service received acknowledgement of
16 service from CDCR. Id. However, CDCR never entered an appearance, and on June 29, 2010, the
17 Clerk entered default based on CDCR’s failure to plead or otherwise defend itself in the action.
18 Entry of Default as to Defendant CDCR, ECF No. 18. Plaintiff now moves for default judgment
19 and an award of damages in the amount of $1,000,000. Req. to Ct. for Entry of Default ¶ 21, ECF
20 No. 22.
21 II. Legal Standard
22 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), a federal court may enter a default
23 judgment against a party who has failed to plead or otherwise defend. Entry of default judgment is
24 discretionary, Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980), and “may be refused where
25 the court determines no justifiable claim has been alleged or that a default judgment is
26 inappropriate for other reasons.” Doe v. Qi, 349 F. Supp. 2d 1258, 1271 (N.D. Cal. 2004). In
27 defaulting, a defendant is deemed to admit all well-pleaded factual allegations contained in the
28 complaint. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh, 503 F.3d 847, 851 (9th Cir. 2007). “However,
Case5:10-cv-00326-LHK Document25 Filed10/27/10 Page3 of 4
1 necessary facts not contained in the pleadings, and claims which are legally insufficient, are not
2 established by default.” Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir.
3 1992). Accordingly, a court may not enter a default judgment if, taking all well-pleaded factual
4 allegations as true, the court finds that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief. Id.
5 III. Discussion
6 A. Civil Rights Claims
7 Plaintiff’s first six claims for relief allege violations of Plaintiff’s Fourth, Fifth, and
8 Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff brings these claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which
9 provides a private right of action for civil rights violations committed under color of law; 42 U.S.C.
10 § 1985(3), which provides a private right of action against persons who conspire to deprive an
11 individual of civil rights; and 42 U.S.C. § 1986, which provides a private right of action against
12 persons who neglect to prevent civil rights conspiracies described in Section 1985. The Court finds
13 that these claims are legally insufficient because Defendant CDCR is a state agency entitled to
14 immunity under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution.
15 Under the Eleventh Amendment, states and state agencies are immune from suits brought in
16 federal court by their own citizens or by citizens of other states. Pittman v. Oregon, Employment
17 Dept., 509 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007). There are several exceptions to Eleventh Amendment
18 immunity. In some instances, Congress is empowered to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the
19 states, and a state may also waive its immunity.2 Id. However, the Supreme Court has made clear
20 that Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity, id. (citing Quern v. Jordan,
21 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979)), and California has not waived immunity with respect to Section 1983
22 claims brought in federal court. Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 1999).
23 The Eleventh Amendment also applies to Plaintiff’s claims under Sections 1985 and 1986. See
24 Cerrato v. San Francisco Community College Dist., 26 F.3d 968, 975 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that
25 Eleventh Amendment bars Section 1985 and 1986 claims brought against a state entity).
27 Additionally, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits for prospective injunctive relief against
individual state officials in their official capacity, Pittman, 509 F.3d at 1071, or suits for damages
28 against individual state officials in their individual capacity, Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 31 (1991).
Here, however, Plaintiff sues only CDCR and does not name individual officials as defendants.
Case5:10-cv-00326-LHK Document25 Filed10/27/10 Page4 of 4
1 The Ninth Circuit has held that CDCR is a state agency entitled to immunity under the
2 Eleventh Amendment. Brown v. California Dept. of Corrections, 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir.
3 2009). Accordingly, Plaintiff is barred from bringing Section 1983, 1985, and 1986 claims against
4 CDCR in federal court. For this reason, Plaintiff’s civil rights claims are legally insufficient, and
5 the Court DENIES default judgment as to these claims. Additionally, because the Eleventh
6 Amendment precludes Plaintiff from stating a viable cause of action against Defendant CDCR, the
7 Court finds that Plaintiff’s civil rights claims must be DISMISSED with prejudice. See Moore v.
8 United Kingdom, 384 F.3d 1079, 1090 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that dismissal is proper where
9 plaintiff is not entitled to default judgment because he fails to state a claim for relief).
10 B. Violations of Federal Criminal Laws
11 Plaintiff’s remaining claims allege that Defendant CDCR violated federal statutes by
12 conspiring against Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241; willfully depriving him of
13 rights under color of law, 18 U.S.C. § 242; and defrauding or swindling Plaintiff out of his personal
14 property, 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Each of these claims alleges a violation of federal criminal law. These
15 laws provide for criminal prosecution by the government and do not provide a private right of
16 action to individual litigants like Plaintiff. See, e.g., Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1989)
17 (“Only the United States as prosecutor can bring a complaint under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242”); Haile
18 v. Sawyer, 2003 WL 1907661, at *3 (N.D. Cal. April 14, 2003) (dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims
19 under Title 18 because Plaintiff is not authorized to bring claims under criminal statutes). The
20 Court therefore DENIES default judgment as to these claims. Additionally, because Plaintiff lacks
21 standing to bring these claims, the Court finds they must be DISMISSED with prejudice.
22 IV. Conclusion
23 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and
24 DISMISSES the Complaint with prejudice. The clerk shall close the file and terminate any
25 pending motions.
27 Dated: October 27, 2010 _________________________________
28 United States District Judge
Dokumen Serupa dengan Buza v. CDCR 1983 MTD
Populer di California Department Of Corrections And Rehabilitation
Parole Suitability Hearing Handbook: Information for Victims and their Families
KARUNA ANAND, Plaintiff, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO Case No.: 34-2018-00226894
California-GEO Group contract for MCRP facility