MAXINE M. CHESNEY, United States District Judge
Before the Court is plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), when a party seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the court shall dismiss the case if the court determines that the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In the complaint, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, alleges that in 1998 and thereafter, he wrote to then Governor Pete Wilson and to Governor Gray Davis, requesting that certain action be taken to resolve disputes between plaintiff and the University of California at Berkeley, but that neither Governor Wilson nor Governor Davis responded to his letters. Plaintiff alleges that such conduct violated his right to seek redress of grievances, his right to due process, and his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
The only defendant named in the caption is the "University of California Regents." The body of the complaint, however, names former Governor Pete Wilson and present Governor Gray Davis as defendants.
The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from abridging the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." See U.S. Const. amend I. This right is infringed when a government actor directly interferes with the right to present a grievance, or imposes restrictions on the ability to present a grievance that have a "chilling" effect on a citizen's exercise of that right. See O'Keefe v. Van Boening, 82 F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff does not contend that either Governor Wilson or Governor Davis has refused to allow him to present grievances or has otherwise imposed any restriction on his ability to petition for redress of grievances. Indeed, plaintiff alleges that numerous state officials did respond to his grievances, albeit not with a result to his liking. Accordingly, plaintiff fails to state a claim that he was denied the right to petition for redress of grievances.
Because plaintiff's due process deprivation claim is derivative of his right to redress claim, that claim likewise is without merit. Moreover, because plaintiff does not allege that he is a prisoner, plaintiff cannot state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 318 (1986) (holding only persons convicted of crimes may bring Eighth Amendment deprivation claims).
To the extent plaintiff seeks relief against the Regents of the University of California, such claims lack merit as the Regents are entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. See Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1350 (9th Cir. 1982).
For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs complaint is hereby DISMISSED without leave to amend. In light of the dismissal of plaintiffs complaint, plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
The Clerk shall close the file.