Andrade

Filing 11

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 1/27/2025. Amended Complaint due by 2/24/2025. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2025)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served along with two copies of the courts complaint form by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EMANUEL RODRIGUEZ ANDRADE,

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10

C.D.C.R,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 24-cv-07434-HSG

12
Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, has filed a pro se action pursuant to 42

13
14

U.S.C. § 1983. Now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is Plaintiff’s

15

complaint, Dkt. No. 7. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate

16

order.
DISCUSSION

17
18

A.

Standard of Review

19

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks

20

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims

22

that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek

23

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),

24

(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d

25

989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020).

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

27

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not

28

necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the

1

grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted).

2

While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned,

3

the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009).

4

A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

5

cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id.

6

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a

7

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged

8

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487

9

U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

10

B.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dismissal with Leave to Amend
The complaint names as defendants “C.D.C.R California Department of Corrections and

12

staff responsible for damages.” Dkt. No. 7 at 1. The complaint alleges the following. There were

13

shattered glass fragments in the Ad-Seg shower. Plaintiff complained about this multiple times,

14

but Defendants negligently failed to fix the shower window or clean up the glass. As a result,

15

Plaintiff’s eye was permanently damaged. The CDCR failed to adhere to the health and safety

16

code. The complaint seeks $150,000 in damages as relief. See generally Dkt. No. 7.

17

The complaint incorporates by reference Plaintiff’s “maritime claim,” which appears to be

18

Dkt. No. 1. The Court will not piece together a complaint from various pleadings. The operative

19

complaint is the pleading docketed at Dkt. No. 7, and the Court does not consider Dkt. No. 1 as

20

part of Dkt. No. 7. In addition, Plaintiff incorrectly characterizes his filing as a maritime claim.

21

Plaintiff’s claim does not fall within the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts because the

22

relevant event did not happen on navigable waters and did not involve traditional maritime

23

activity. Exec. Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 409 U.S. 249, 261 (1972).

24

The failure to address unsafe prison conditions, such as shattered glass in a shower door,

25

states a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837

26

(1994) (prison official liable under Eighth Amendment for denying inmate humane conditions of

27

confinement if official knows of and disregards excessive risk to inmate health or safety).

28

However, the complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend because the claims against the
2

1

CDCR are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and because, outside of the CDCR, the complaint

2

has only named Doe defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

The Court DISMISSES defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

4

from this action with prejudice because the CDCR, as a state agency, has Eleventh Amendment

5

immunity from Plaintiff’s claims. The Eleventh Amendment bars from the federal courts suits

6

against a state by its own citizens, citizens of another state or citizens or subjects of any foreign

7

state. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 237-38 (1985). With a few exceptions

8

inapplicable here, a state cannot be sued regardless of the relief sought. Kentucky v. Graham, 473

9

U.S. 159, 167 n.14 (1985) (citing Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978)); Confederated Tribes &

10

Bands v. Locke, 176 F.3d 467, 469 (9th Cir. 1999). This Eleventh Amendment immunity extends

11

to suits against a state agency, including the CDCR. Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs., 554 F.3d 747,

12

752 (9th Cir. 2009) (California Department of Corrections entitled to Eleventh Amendment

13

immunity).

14

The Court DISSMISES the Doe defendants from this action without prejudice to Plaintiff

15

filing an amended complaint naming the relevant individuals. The complaint sues “staff

16

responsible for damages,” Dkt. No. 7 at 1, in essence suing Doe defendants. The use of “John

17

Doe” to identify a defendant is not favored in the Ninth Circuit, see Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d

18

637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980), in part because it is effectively impossible for the United States Marshal

19

to serve an anonymous defendant. In preparing an amended complaint, Plaintiff should identify

20

by name the individuals whom he informed of the shattered glass and who failed to address the

21

safety issue.

22

CONCLUSION

23

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the complaint with leave to amend.

24

Within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint

25

that addresses the identified deficiencies. The amended complaint must include the caption and

26

civil case number used in this order, Case No. 24-07434 HSG (PR) and the words “AMENDED

27

COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court form complaint, Plaintiff must answer all the

28

questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. An amended complaint completely
3

1

replaces the previous complaints. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2010).

2

Accordingly, Plaintiff must include in his amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present

3

and all of the defendants he wishes to sue, and may not incorporate material from the prior

4

complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order in the

5

time provided will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff. The Clerk

6

shall include two copies of the court’s complaint form with a copy of this order to Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

Dated:

1/27/2025
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4