Jackson v. State of California

Filing 3

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 6/30/15. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD E. JACKSON, III,
Plaintiff,

12
13

CASE NO. 15cv1353-LAB (NLS)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

14

Defendant.

15
16

Jackson brought this civil rights lawsuit against the State of California pursuant to 42

17

U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket no. 1.) Jackson didn't pay the civil filing fees required by 28 U.S.C.

18

§ 1914(a) to commence a civil action; instead he has filed a motion to proceed in forma

19

pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (Docket no. 2.)

20

The IFP application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However,

21

a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not

22

complete the inquiry required by the statute. "A district court may deny leave to proceed in

23

forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the

24

action is frivolous or without merit." Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th

25

Cir.1998) (quotation omitted).

26

The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal jurisdiction over claims brought against

27

a state and its agencies unless the state consents to suit. Pennhurst State School & Hosp.

28

v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). The State of California is the only defendant that
-1-

15cv1353

1

Jackson has named in this case. (Docket no. 1.) "The State of California has not waived its

2

Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to claims brought under § 1983 in federal court,

3

and the Supreme Court has held that § 1983 was not intended to abrogate a State's Eleventh

4

Amendment immunity." Dittman v. State of California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025–26 (9th Cir.

5

1999) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Thus, Jackson can't bring suit against

6

California under § 1983. Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 951 (9th Cir. 2004) ("State

7

agencies . . . are not 'persons 'within the meaning of § 1983, and are therefore not amenable

8

to suit under that statute."). This case is DISMISSED.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 30, 2015

11
12

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

15cv1353