(PC) Humes v. State of California
2:18-cv-00244
| E.D. Cal. | Apr 13, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Jon Humes, a Sacramento County Jail prisoner, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint challenging his placement on a sex-offender registry and seeking relief including injunctive relief and monetary damages.
- Plaintiff sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis; the court granted IFP status and explained the statutory filing-fee collection procedure under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
- The court conducted its required screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and identified only one viable claim: a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim for injunctive relief against California Attorney General Xavier Becerra in his official capacity concerning the registry listing.
- The court found the complaint failed to state any other claim on which relief can be granted, and dismissed or recommended dismissal of other defendants and claims (including monetary damages claims) for lack of personal participation and Eleventh Amendment immunity.
- Plaintiff’s motions to waive filing fees and to receive $500/month for litigation/discovery were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IFP should be granted | Humes submitted a declaration showing inability to pay | N/A (no opposition recorded) | IFP granted; statutory fee collection ordered |
| Whether the complaint states a due process claim challenging registry listing | Humes alleges wrongful listing on sex-offender registry and seeks injunctive relief | Becerra not yet served; state defendants immune for monetary relief | Court allowed Fourteenth Amendment injunctive claim to proceed against Becerra in his official capacity |
| Whether monetary damages claims and claims against state/entity and other officials survive screening | Humes seeks monetary relief and names State and a registry division and various defendants | State and state agencies are immune; no allegations of personal participation by individual defendants | Those claims/defendants dismissed (Eleventh Amendment and lack of personal participation) |
| Whether court should provide funds or waive filing fee | Humes requested fee waiver and $500/month for litigation/discovery | Court lacks authority to provide funds; prisoners must pay filing fees | Motions denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1989) (section 1983 liability requires personal participation)
- Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978) (Eleventh Amendment bars certain suits against states/state agencies)
- Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to object to magistrate judge findings may waive appellate review)