Order | Filed: August 04, 2026
| Entered: August 04, 2026
Abera v. The Regents of the University of California et al
Civil Rights: Other | California Southern
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File
Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Pro se Plaintiff Aman Abera filed a complaint alleging constitutional violations and whistleblower retaliation against ten defendants, including several California state entities and officials. Dkt. 1. Although he has paid the filing fee, he requests that the Court order marshal service of his complaint because he has been unable to effectuate service. Dkt. 20. Before ordering marshal service, the Court sua sponte screens the complaint pursuant to its inherent authority to dismiss claims that "cannot possibly win relief." See Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987).
Upon screening, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's federal constitutional and civil rights claims brought against the University of California ("UC") Regents, UC San Diego, UC Office of the President, California Department of Justice ("CA DOJ"), and California Civil Rights Department ("CA CRD") (Claims 1-3, 18, 19, 21) because they are barred by sovereign immunity. These Defendants are state agencies and instrumentalities that are absolutely immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment, regardless of the relief sought. See Doe v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 891 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 2018) (sovereign immunity bars suits against states and their instrumentalities, including the University of California and the Regents, in federal court); id. at 1154 n.6 (Ex parte Young, which provides a narrow exception to sovereign immunity for claims seeking prospective relief against a state official, does not apply to state entities); Emeziem v. California Dep't of Just., No. 16-cv-06628-HSG, 2017 WL 3382299, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2017) (gathering cases extending Eleventh Amendment immunity to the CA DOJ, a state agency). To the extent Plaintiff asserts whistleblower, retaliation, and tort claims under state law (Claims 4-10), those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling in state court because the Eleventh Amendment bars federal courts, but not state courts, from hearing state law claims against immune state defendants. See Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004) (the Eleventh Amendment precludes adjudication of state law claims in federal courts).
The Court also dismisses all claims against CA CRD Director Kevin Kish because they are either barred by sovereign immunity or fail to state a claim. Plaintiff's requests for damages from Kish in his official capacity (Claims 15, 16, 19, 20) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE because those claims are treated as claims against the State, and the Eleventh Amendment bars claims for monetary relief against a State. See Holley v. Cal. Dep't of Corr., 599 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010) (claims against state officials in their official capacities are treated as suits against the State). Plaintiff's § 1983 claim against Kish in his individual capacity (Claims 16) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because Plaintiff fails to allege Kish's personal participation in the CA CRD's denial of his administrative complaint and appeal. See Felarca v. Birgeneau, 891 F.3d 809, 819-20 (9th Cir. 2018) ("An official may be liable as a supervisor only if either (1) he or she was personally involved in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection exists between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation."). Plaintiff alleges that Kish deprived him of procedural due process because Kish's name "appeared on the letterhead" of the CRD's decision denying his administrative appeal and because Kish failed to retract that decision after Plaintiff mailed him a demand letter. See Dkt. 1 at P.59. These allegations show nothing more than Kish's supervisory role as Director of the CA CRD and are insufficient to show Kish's personal participation in, or knowledge of, the alleged procedural due process violation. See J.K.G. v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 11-cv-305 JLS (RBB), 2011 WL 5218253, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011) (even signing an allegedly false police report does not show the supervisor's knowledge of the report's falsity or establish personal participation). Because Plaintiff fails to state a § 1983 claim against Kish, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE his §§ 1985 and 1986 conspiracy claims arising from the same alleged deprivation of Plaintiff's procedural due process rights. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 929 (9th Cir. 2004) (to state a conspiracy claim under § 1985, a plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim under § 1983); Trerice v. Pedersen, 769 F.2d 1398, 1403 (9th Cir. 1985) (where a plaintiff's § 1985(3) conspiracy claim fails, the derivative § 1986 claim for failing to prevent that conspiracy fails as well).
The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's request to compel California Atto... (truncated)