Raymond Albert Rodriguez v. State of California, et al.

Rodriguez v. State of California, No. 2:25-cv-1141 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2025) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · September 3, 2025 · No. No. 2:25-cv-1141 CKD P

Summary

The court grants Raymond Albert Rodriguez leave to proceed in forma pauperis but requires payment of the statutory filing fee. Upon screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court identifies a Fourteenth Amendment claim against defendant Ho concerning allegedly unsanitary conditions of confinement and gives plaintiff 21 days either to proceed on that claim and dismiss the others or to file an amended complaint.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiff satisfied the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), so the court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
  2. The complaint stated a claim against defendant Ho arising under the Fourteenth Amendment for Ho being at least deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's exposure to unsanitary conditions of confinement.
  3. A municipality cannot be held vicariously liable under § 1983 for the actions of its employees; liability requires that execution of a government policy or custom inflict the constitutional injury.
  4. Plaintiff failed to state a Title II ADA claim because he did not show exclusion from or discrimination regarding a public entity's services, programs, or activities by reason of a disability.
  5. A § 1983 claim requires an affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation; vague and conclusory allegations of supervisory participation are insufficient, and there is no vicarious liability under § 1983.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiff satisfied the statutory requirements to proceed in forma pauperis.
  2. Whether the complaint stated a potentially cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim against defendant Ho based on deliberate indifference to unsanitary conditions of confinement.
  3. Whether the State of California and Sacramento County were proper defendants for the asserted § 1983 claims.
  4. Whether plaintiff stated a claim under Title II of the ADA.
  5. Whether the complaint adequately linked each defendant's conduct to the alleged constitutional deprivation and adequately alleged supervisory liability.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (4)

  • Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691, 694 (1978)(followed)
  • Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976)(followed)
  • Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…