Ripley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARLENA RIPLEY, Case No. 23-cv-02629-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

v. DISMISS

ANDRE TORRES, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 17 Defendants.

The motion to dismiss is granted because the complaint fails to state a claim for relief. This ruling assumes familiarity with the facts, the arguments made by the parties, and the applicable legal standard.1 1. Ripley’s claims for damages against the defendants in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Krainski v. Nevada ex rel. Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education, 616 F.3d 963, 967 (9th Cir. 2010). 2. Ripley has not plausibly stated a Fourth Amendment claim. She does not adequately allege that the search warrant was issued without probable cause. See Burton v. Spokane Police Department, 383 F. App’x 671, 672–73 (9th Cir. 2010). Nor does Ripley adequately allege that the prison officials lacked reasonable, individualized suspicion that she was carrying contraband. See Cates v. Stroud, 976 F.3d 972, 980 (9th Cir. 2020). Her assertion that Torres’s affidavit relied at best on…