1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 KEVIN LEE BARRIOS, 7 Case No. 22-cv-04594-RS (PR) Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 10 DISTRICT ATTORNEY, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 In less than two months, plaintiff has filed five

complaints in this 14 action, each of which are disorderly and difficult to follow. In his latest complaint, he 15 names as defendants the Contra Costa County District Attorney; the State of California; 16 Google Corp.; the feminists of Stanford University; the Richmond Police Department; the 17 El Cerrito Police Department; and the San Diego District Attorney. (Fifth Am. Compl., 18 Dkt. No. 9 at 1.) The complaint, however, contains allegations against only the Contra 19 Costa County District Attorney regarding some court criminal proceedings. (Id. at 2.) 20 The claims against the Contra Costa County District Attorney are DISMISSSED 21 because the district attorney is immune from suit. A state prosecuting attorney enjoys 22 absolute immunity from damages liability under

for his conduct in 23 “pursuing a criminal prosecution” insofar as he acts within his role as an “advocate for the 24 State” and his actions are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal 25 process.” Imbler v. Pachtman,

(1976). 26 Because plaintiff has not made any allegations against the other named defendants, 27 they are DISMISSED from this action. Furthermore, the feminists of Stanford University 1 individual does not act under color of state law, an essential element of a § 1983 action. 2 See Gomez v. Toledo,

(1980). The State of California is immune from 3 suit because the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution “bars suits which seek either 4 damages or injunctive relief against a state, an ‘arm of the state,’ its instrumentalities, or its 5 agencies.” Franceschi v. Schwartz,

(9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). 6 Any federal suit against the San Diego Police Department must be brought in the Southern 7 District of California, not in this district. If plaintiff wishes to file suit against the El 8 Cerrito Police Department and/or the Richmond Police Department, he must do so in 9 separate civil rights actions. 10 Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 7.) The Clerk 11 shall terminate Dkt. No. 7, enter judgment in favor of defendants, and close the file. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: January 5, 2023 _________________________ 14 RICHARD SEEBORG 15 Chief United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27