Pallazhco v. Acevedo

Background

Ricardo Pallazhco brought a civil-rights complaint against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and CDCR officers A. Acevedo and M. Avila. The complaint asserted one cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against CDCR. CDCR moved to dismiss the claims against the agency.

Legal issue and reasoning

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right protected by federal law or the Constitution and that a “person” acting under state law committed the violation. The court held that CDCR is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983. The court relied on the Eleventh Amendment and decisions holding that state agencies are not persons under Section 1983 and are protected from these claims.

The court rejected Pallazhco’s opposition. It explained that CDCR was not asserting qualified immunity, which is a protection sometimes claimed by individual government officials. Instead, CDCR argued that Congress did not eliminate the states’ Eleventh Amendment protection when it enacted Section 1983. The court also rejected Pallazhco’s argument under Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, explaining that Monell applies to municipalities, while states remain protected by the Eleventh Amendment.

Disposition

Judge Corley granted CDCR’s motion to dismiss. The Section 1983 claim against CDCR was dismissed, while the Section 1983 claim against the individual officers remained. At the parties’ request, the court referred them to Magistrate Judge Illman for a settlement conference and continued the case-management conference from August 31, 2022, to December 1, 2022.