Joseph Moore v. Jeff Macomber, CDCR, Does 1–10, Dr. Sato

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Joseph Moore’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, assessed an initial partial filing fee, and screened the prisoner civil-rights complaint. The court dismissed without prejudice claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Eighth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment for failure to state a claim or because of sovereign immunity. The court also denied the motion for a temporary restraining order as moot and granted 60 days to file an amended complaint.

Holdings

1. Moore failed to state ADA or Rehabilitation Act claims because she did not allege facts showing that the denial of a permanent single-cell classification or the attempted cellmate assignment occurred by reason of her disability.
2. The CDCR was not a proper defendant for Moore's Section 1983 claims because California and its agencies are immune from such suits in federal court absent waiver or a valid congressional abrogation.
3. Officials sued in their official capacities may be treated as persons for purposes of prospective injunctive relief, but Moore failed to plead a cognizable official-capacity claim because she did not identify the challenged policy adequately, establish the defendants' direct connection to its enforcement, or allege a continuing constitutional violation.
4. Moore failed to state Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment claims because she did not plausibly allege a constitutional deprivation, and the defendants were sued only in their official capacities.
5. The TRO motion was denied without prejudice as moot because dismissal of the complaint left the court without personal jurisdiction over a defendant against whom injunctive relief could issue.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Moore stated ADA or Rehabilitation Act claims based on the alleged denial of permanent single-cell housing.
2. Whether the CDCR and officials sued only in their official capacities were proper defendants for Moore's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3. Whether Moore plausibly alleged an ongoing constitutional violation supporting prospective injunctive relief under the exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
4. Whether Moore stated Eighth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment claims based on the attempted cellmate assignment and double-cell classification.
5. Whether the temporary restraining order should be denied as moot after dismissal of the complaint.

Disposition

dismissed