Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

ERLINDO RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. CDCR, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

DALE DROZD, Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed May 13, 2008, plaintiff's amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. On May 29, 2008, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint but failed to sign it as required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court granted plaintiff thirty days leave to sign his complaint and return it to the court. On June 20, 2008, plaintiff filed a signed second amended complaint.

The court finds that plaintiff's second amended complaint appears to state cognizable claims for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) against defendants Mayson and Colletti. If the allegations of the second amended complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. However, the court also finds that plaintiff's second amended complaint does not state cognizable claims for relief against defendant "CDCR." As the court previously advised plaintiff, the Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to suits brought by private parties against a state or state agency unless the state or the agency consents to such suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 340 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). In the instant case, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") has not consented to suit. Accordingly, plaintiff will not be allowed to proceed in this action against the CDCR.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service of the second amended complaint is appropriate for the following defendants: Mayson and Colletti.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff two USM-285 forms, one summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the second amended complaint filed June 20, 2008.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit all of the following documents to the court at the same time:

a. The completed, signed Notice of Submission of Documents;
b. One completed summons;
c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1 above; and
d. Three copies of the second amended complaint filed June 20, 2008.

4. Plaintiff shall not attempt to effect service of the second amended complaint on defendants or request a waiver of service of summons from any defendant. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs.

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order filed _________________________: _____ one completed summons form; _____ two completed USM-285 forms; and _____ three true and exact copies of the second amended complaint filed June 20, 2008. DATED: ___________________________. _______________________________________ Plaintiff

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

RODRIGUEZ v. CDCR
(Jul 1, 2008)