1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT L. DAVIS, Case No. 2:24-cv-03213-FLA (PDx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 13 v. 14 DAVID HOLBROOK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 On February 21, 2024, Robert L. Davis (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint 2 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections and 3 Rehabilitations (“CDCR”) and David Holbrook, Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 4 Warden (“Warden Holbrook”), in the United States District Court for the Northern 5 District of California. Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”). On April 15, 2024, the case was 6 transferred to this district because the events alleged in the Complaint occurred 7 here. Dkt. 9. On May 28, 2024, Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment 8 of fees was granted. Dkt. 12. 9 Plaintiff alleges that the CDCR and Warden Holbrook violated his due 10 process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by denying 11 his request for family visitation privileges. Compl. at 3, 5.1 Plaintiff also asserts 12 state law claims for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress 13 against Defendants. Id. at 6. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. 14 Id. 15 On June 26, 2024, the court issued a screening order dismissing the 16 Complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. 17. The court dismissed the claims against 17 the CDCR because it is entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment for 18 claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal court. See Brown v. California 19 Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that the CDCR is 20 entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity). Dkt. 17 at 5–6. The court also 21 dismissed the claims against Warden Holbrook in his official capacity based on 22 Eleventh Amendment immunity, along with the claims for denial of family visits, 23 violations of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, 24 and the state law tort claims. Id. at 6–10. Although the court found it unlikely that 25 Plaintiff could cure the deficiencies in his Complaint, he was given an opportunity 26 27 1 The court uses the CM/ECF page numbers. 1 || to file an amended complaint or file a notice of voluntary dismissal by July 24, 2 || 2024. Id. at 10-11. 3 On July 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. 4 || Civ. P. 41(a) as to Warden Holbrook. Dkt. 20. Plaintiff did not include the CDCR 5 || in the dismissal notice, and he did not file an amended complaint. As discussed in 6 || the screening order, the CDCR is immune from suit with respect to claims brought 7 || under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dkt. No. 17 at 5—6. Eleventh Amendment immunity 8 || also applies to state law claims brought in federal court. Pennhurst v. State Sch. & 9 || Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); C.N. v. Wolf, 410 F. Supp. 2d 894, 10 | 900 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (holding Eleventh Amendment immunity barred claims 11 || against CDCR under various California civil rights statutes). While California has 12 || consented to be sued in its own courts under the California Tort Claims Act, such 13 || consent does not constitute consent to suit in federal court. See Dittman v. 14 || California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 1999); BV Eng’g v. Univ. of Cal., 15 || L.A., 858 F.2d 1394, 1396 (9th Cir. 1988). 16 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant CDCR and this action are 17 || DISMISSED without prejudice. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 || Dated: September 6, 2024 22 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28