Rodriguez v. State of California et al

Filing 24

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause, in writing and no later than June 5, 2009, why the complaint should no t be dismissed for failure to state a claim; defendants shall file any reply to plaintiff's response no later than June 12, 2009. The Case Management Conference is continued from June 5, 2009 to July 17, 2009; a Joint Case Management Statement shall be filed no later than July 10, 2009.Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 15, 2009. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 By order filed April 15, 2009, the above-titled action was reassigned to the undersigned. Having read and considered plaintiff's complaint and defendants' answer, the Court, for the reasons discussed below, will order plaintiff to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the only named defendants are the State of California and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In their answer, defendants allege, as the Twelfth Affirmative Defense, that "[n]either the State of California nor any of its departments is a `person' within the meaning of the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S. Code section 1983 et seq." (See Answer at 4:1011.) The Supreme Court has held that neither a state nor a state agency is "subject to suit under § 1983 in either federal court or state court." See Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants / DONALD RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, No. C-08-5390 MMC ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE United States District Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

356, 365 (1990); see also Will v. Michigan, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1988) (holding that although § 1983 suits can be brought against "local government units," such suits cannot be brought against states or state agencies; affirming dismissal of § 1983 suit brought against state agency). Here, as noted, the only defendants are the State and a state agency. Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and no later than June 5, 2009, why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Defendants shall file any reply to plaintiffs' response no later than June 12, 2009. In light of the instant Order to Show Cause, the Case Management Conference is hereby CONTINUED from June 5, 2009 to July 17, 2009. A Joint Case Management Statement shall be filed no later than July 10, 2009. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2009

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2