Eddie Jones v. California Dept. of Corrections, et al.

Summary

The United States Magistrate Judge grants Eddie Jones’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and recommends dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without leave to amend. The document concludes that the California Department of Corrections and California Health Care Facility are immune from suit and that the alleged failure to prevent a fall and delayed grievance response do not state constitutional claims. Plaintiff is given 14 days to file objections to the findings and recommendations.

Holdings

1. The California Department of Corrections and prisons within it are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment; therefore, the two defendants named in the complaint cannot be sued under § 1983.
2. Allegations that defendants failed to train staff to take steps to prevent plaintiff’s fall allege, at most, an ordinary lack of due care and do not establish deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm.
3. A prisoner has no constitutional entitlement to a particular prison grievance procedure or timely response, so delay in processing a grievance does not state a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim absent a protected life, liberty, or property interest.
4. The complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend because amendment would be futile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the California Department of Corrections and California Health Care Facility are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether allegations that prison officials failed to train staff to prevent a prisoner’s fall state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim.
3. Whether delay in responding to a prison grievance states a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim.
4. Whether the complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend because its defects cannot be cured by amendment.

Disposition

other