I Want to Sue the CDCR and the Parole Board – Can I?

No is the answer to the question posed in the title of this article.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 states that any “person” who has acted under “color of state law” and “caused” a deprivation of a federal right may be sued in a federal civil rights action.  The person may be sued in either an “individual” or “official” capacity, depending on what type of remedy is being sought.

A defendant in a civil rights lawsuit must be a “person.”  A good discussion of who may be sued and in what capacities is included in Taormina v. California Dept. of Corrections (S.D. Cal. 1996) 946 F. Supp. 830. 

An individual prison official or staff member should be identified by name and position (for example, Officer White or Doctor Black).  

Persons also include high-ranking officials such as the warden of the prison or the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).  

If the person in prison does not know the name of one or more of the defendants, the court will usually allow them to name those defendants as “John Doe #1" and so on.  The person in prison can later seek information through discovery regarding the identity of the John Doe defendants. However, the court might not allow a suit against a “Doe” defendant if it is clear that discovery would not uncover the defendant’s identity or that the complaint will be dismissed for other reasons. Gillespie v. Civiletti (9th Cir. 1980) 629 F. 2d 637, 642; Wakefield v. Thompson (9th Cir. 1999) 177 F. 3d 1160, 1163.

It is more tricky to figure out whether a government agency can be sued under § 1983.  The state of California and state agencies such as the CDCR and the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), are not considered to be “persons” for purposes of a federal civil rights case. 

Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police (1989) 491 U.S. 58, 65, 109 S. Ct. 2304; Hale v. Arizona (9th Cir. 1993) 993 F. 2d 1387, 1398. 

 

Moreover, the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits a person from suing a state or state agency for money in federal court, unless the state has agreed to be subject to such a lawsuit. Alabama v. Pugh (1978) 348 U.S. 781, 98 S. Ct. 3057; 57 L. Ed. 2d 111; Edelman v. Jordan (1974) 415 U.S. 651, 662-663, 94 S. Ct. 1347; 39 L. Ed.2d 662.  States do not waive their immunity against money damages suits under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by accepting federal funding. 

Sossamon v. Texas (2011) 563 U.S. 277, 131 S. Ct. 1651; 179 L. Ed. 2d 700; Alvarez v. Hill (9th Cir. 2012) 667 F. 3d 1061, 1063; Holley v. California Dept. of Corrections (9th Cir. 2010) 599 F. 3d 1108, 1112.  Therefore, a person cannot generally file a federal civil rights action against “The State of California,” “The CDCR,” “The Board of Parole Hearings,” or a particular prison such as “San Quentin.”

There is one important exception to the general rule that the state itself cannot be sued in a § 1983 case.  People in prison and on parole can name the state itself as a defendant in cases for injunctive relief under two federal disability rights laws, the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Clark v. California (9th Cir. 1997) 123 F. 3d 1267, 1269-1270; see also Hason v. Medical Board of California (9th Cir. 2002) 279 F. 3d 1167, 1170.  Similarly, people in prison can bring suits against the state for money damages under the Rehabilitation Act if the state has waived immunity by accepting federal funds for the program or activity at issue. Bane v. Virginia Dept. of Corrections (W.D. Va. 2003) 267 F. Supp. 2d 514, 527-528.  In addition, money damages suits can be brought against the state under the ADA if the person can demonstrate that the disability-based discrimination amounted to a constitutional violation. United States v. Georgia (2006) 546 U.S. 151, 158, 126 S. Ct. 877; 163 L. Ed. 2d 650; see also Alabama v. Garrett (2001) 531 U.S. 356, 363, 121 S. Ct. 955; 148 L. Ed. 2d 866.

The state and the prison may also be sued for ADA and Rehabilitation Act violations committed by a private company employing incarcerated people in a state program. Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc. (9th Cir. 2013) 731 F. 3d 901, 910.  

Local public entities – such as cities and counties – are considered to be “persons” for purposes of a § 1983 lawsuit.  Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment does not prohibit federal suits for money damages against local government entities. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services (1978) 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S. Ct. 2018; see also Thompson v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 1989) 885 F. 2d 1439, 1443.

Thus, for example, a county can be sued for actions taken by sheriff’s department employees in the course of running a county jail. Cortez v. Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2002) 294 F. 3d 1186, 1189.

However, there are some limitations on the liability of county or local agencies.  A local entity usually can be sued under § 1983 when the violation of federal rights is due to a rule, policy, regulation, or local custom, but not when the violation is due to the independent action of one of its employees. Monell, supra, 694-695.  Also, a sheriff's department is immune from liability for violations of rights that occur when a sheriff's deputy acts on behalf of the state by performing general law enforcement activities such as searches and seizures. Pierce v. San Mateo County Sheriff's Department (2014) 232 Cal. App. 4th 995, 1006, 181 Cal. Rptr. 3d 816; Venegas v. Los Angeles (2004) 32 Cal. 4th 820, 828, 11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 692.

While this article appears on our website, it would be improper to credit us with its content.  Instead, credit is due to the Prison Law Office and their wonderful treatise, California Prison and Parole Law Handbook, which we thank them for.