-KJN (PS) McCain v. California Highway Patrol et al, No. 2:2011cv01265 - Document 38 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/3/2011 ORDERING that defendant California Highway Patrol's 4 motion to dismiss is SUBMITTED without oral argument, and the August 11, 2011 hearing on the motion is VACATED. It is recommending that Defendant Ca Highway Patrol's 14 motion to dismiss be granted. All of plaintiff's claims against the defendant California Highway Patrol be dismissed, and that defendant California Highway Patrol be dismissed from this action; referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller 4 MOTION to DISMISS. Objections due within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Duong, D)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-KJN (PS) McCain v. California Highway Patrol et al Doc. 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TERRYLYN MCCAIN, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2:11-cv-01265 KJM KJN PS v. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al., 14 Defendants. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 / 16 17 Presently before the court is defendant California Highway Patrol’s (“CHP”) 18 motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims against it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 12(b)(6) on the grounds that plaintiff’s claims against the CHP are barred by the Eleventh 20 Amendment to the United States Constitution.1 Because oral argument would not materially aid 21 the resolution of the pending motion, this matter is submitted on the briefs and record without a 22 hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E. Dist. Local Rule 230(g). The undersigned has considered 23 the briefs and appropriate portions of the record in this case and, for the reasons stated below, 24 recommends that the CHP’s motion to dismiss be granted, that all of plaintiff’s claims alleged 25 1 26 This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 against the CHP be dismissed with prejudice, and that the CHP be dismissed from this action. 2 I. 3 BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that on March 14, 2011, at approximately 7:30 p.m., she was 4 driving eastward on “highway 4” in her automobile when she was pulled over by CHP Officer 5 Manningham (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 16-17, 23, 25-28, 73.) It appears from plaintiff’s often confusing 6 allegations that plaintiff refused to provide Officer Manningham with identification or 7 registration and was subsequently arrested, handcuffed, searched by Officer Jane Doe #1, booked 8 into the San Joaquin County Jail, and cited for various traffic violations. (See id. ¶¶ 33-64, 73.) 9 Plaintiff alleges violations of her constitutional rights provided by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, 10 Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Id. ¶ 75.) It does not 11 appear that plaintiff alleges any state law claims against the CHP. 12 On June 2, 2011, the CHP filed the pending motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 4.) In 13 response, plaintiff filed several, unsuccessful motions to strike, some of which were directed to 14 the CHP’s motion to dismiss. (See Order, June 29, 2011, Dkt. No. 23; Order, July 8, 2011, Dkt. 15 No. 29.) A portion of one of plaintiff’s motions to strike arguably contained a substantive 16 opposition to the CHP’s motion and has been considered here. (See Order, July 8, 2011, at 2-3; 17 Mot. to Strike, Dkt. No. 25.) 18 II. 19 LEGAL STANDARDS A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 20 challenges the sufficiency of the pleadings set forth in the complaint. Vega v. JPMorgan Chase 21 Bank, N.A., 654 F. Supp. 2d 1104, 1109 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Under the “notice pleading” standard 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff’s complaint must provide, in part, a “short and 23 plain statement” of plaintiff’s claims showing entitlement to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see 24 also Paulsen v. CNF, Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). “A complaint may survive a 25 motion to dismiss if, taking all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, it contains ‘enough facts 26 to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 2 1 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)). “‘A claim 2 has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 3 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Caviness v. 4 Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., Inc., 590 F.3d 806, 812 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 5 1949). The court accepts all of the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construes them in 6 the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Corrie v. Caterpillar, 503 F.3d 974, 977 (9th Cir. 2007). 7 The court is “not, however, required to accept as true conclusory allegations that are contradicted 8 by documents referred to in the complaint, and [the court does] not necessarily assume the truth 9 of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations.” Paulsen, 10 559 F.3d at 1071 (citations and quotation marks omitted). 11 The court must construe a pro se pleading liberally to determine if it states a claim 12 and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an 13 opportunity to cure them if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect. See 14 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); accord Balistreri v. Pacifica 15 Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to 16 Rule 12(b)(6), the court “may generally consider only allegations contained in the pleadings, 17 exhibits attached to the complaint, and matters properly subject to judicial notice.” Outdoor 18 Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation and 19 quotation marks omitted). 20 III. 21 DISCUSSION Plaintiff alleges several claims against the CHP pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 22 However, the CHP is a California state agency, or “arm of the state,” and thus plaintiff’s claims 23 against it are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends 24 that plaintiff’s claims against the CHP be dismissed with prejudice. 25 26 The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, 3 1 commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by 2 Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts 3 from hearing suits brought against a state by its own citizens or citizens of other states. Brooks 4 v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991). “[A]bsent waiver 5 by the State or valid congressional override, the Eleventh Amendment bars a damages action 6 against a State in federal court.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985); accord Pittman 7 v. Ore., Employment Dep’t, 509 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009); Henry v. County of Shasta, 8 132 F.3d 512, 517 (9th Cir. 1997). 9 The Eleventh Amendment’s prohibition applies not only to states, but also to state 10 agencies. E.g., Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (holding 11 that claims against the California Department of Corrections were barred by state immunity); 12 Durning v. Citibank, 950 F.2d 1419, 1422-23 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that the Eleventh 13 Amendment bars “federal courts from deciding virtually any case in which a state or the ‘arm of 14 a state’ is a defendant”); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The Nevada 15 Department of Prisons, as a state agency, clearly was immune from suit under the Eleventh 16 Amendment.”). “In the absence of a waiver by the state or a valid congressional override, 17 ‘[u]nder the eleventh amendment, agencies of the state are immune from private damage actions 18 or suits for injunctive relief brought in federal court.’” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 19 1026 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Mitchell v. L.A. Cmty. College Dist., 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 20 1989)) (modification in original); see also Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 21 89, 100 (1984) (“It is clear, of course, that in the absence of consent a suit in which the State or 22 one of its agencies or departments is named as the defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh 23 Amendment.”); accord Aholelei v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) 24 (“The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal court against a state, its 25 agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities.”). 26 To determine whether an agency is an “arm of the state” for purposes of the 4 1 Eleventh Amendment, a court applies a multi-factored balancing test.2 See Mitchell, 861 F.2d 2 at 201. Although the CHP did not address these factors in its moving papers, various courts have 3 persuasively concluded that the CHP is such an agency or arm of the state for the purposes of the 4 Eleventh Amendment; thus the CHP enjoys sovereign immunity.3 See, e.g., Oremus v. Cal. 5 Highway Patrol, No. CIV S-09-2734-MCE-CMK-P, 2010 WL 2817072, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. July 6 15, 2010) (unpublished); May v. Cal. Highway Patrol, No. C 09-3460 BZ, 2010 WL 234868, at 7 *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010) (unpublished); Townsend v. California, No. CV F 10-0470 LJO 8 SKO, 2010 WL 1644740, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2010) (unpublished); Vierria v. Cal. Highway 9 Patrol, 644 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1232 (E.D. Cal. 2009); Heymann v. State, No. C 99-1788 MJJ, 10 1999 WL 638205, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Aug.16, 1999) (unpublished) (applying the five factors to 11 the CHP and finding it to be a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Guzman 12 v. Van Demark, 651 F. Supp. 1180, 1183 (C.D. Cal. 1987) (recognizing that “the CHP’s 13 immunity is coextensive with the State’s immunity”). The State of California has not consented 14 to suit here, and the CHP is a state agency that enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity. 15 In particular regards to plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims, the Ninth Circuit Court of 16 Appeals has recognized that “[t]he State of California has not waived its Eleventh Amendment 17 immunity with respect to claims brought under § 1983 in federal court, and the Supreme Court 18 has held that § 1983 was not intended to abrogate a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.” 19 2 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In Mitchell, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated: “To determine whether a governmental agency is an arm of the state, the following factors must be examined: whether a money judgment would be satisfied out of state funds, whether the entity performs central governmental functions, whether the entity may sue or be sued, whether the entity has the power to take property in its own name or only the name of the state, and the corporate status of the entity.” Mitchell, 861 F.2d at 201. 3 Provisions of the California Government Code support that the CHP is considered a state agency under California law. California Government Code § 11000(a) defines the term “state agency” as including “every state office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, and commission..” Additionally, in terms of the provisions of California’s Government Claims Act, the term “State” is defined as “the State and any office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, commission or agency of the State claims against which are paid by warrants drawn by the Controller.” Cal. Govt. Code § 900.6. 5 1 Dittman, 191 F.3d at 1025-26 (citations and quotation marks omitted); accord Brown v. Cal. 2 Dept. of Corrections, 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009). As a result, plaintiffs’ Section 1983 3 claims against the CHP are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. 4 And although plaintiff does not appear to allege any state law claims against the 5 CHP, this court may not hear any such claims as a result of the Eleventh Amendment.4 Although 6 the State of California has waived its sovereign immunity through the Government Claims Act 7 with respect to tort actions brought in state court, see Cal. Gov’t Code § 945, that waiver does 8 not effectuate a waiver of its Eleventh Amendment protection from tort suits in federal court. 9 BV Eng’g v. Univ. of Cal., L.A., 858 F.2d 1394, 1396 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that the waiver of 10 sovereign immunity in the California Tort Claims Act does not constitute a waiver of Eleventh 11 Amendment immunity in federal court); accord Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585-86 (9th 12 Cir. 1978); see also Guzman v. Van Demark, 651 F. Supp. 1180, 1183-84 (C.D. Cal. 1987) 13 (granting CHP’s motion to dismiss and holding that “[i]t has long been recognized that a state 14 may waive its state sovereign immunity without relinquishing its eleventh amendment 15 immunity”); Kirchmann v. Lake Elsinore Unified Sch. Dist., 83 Cal. App. 4th 1098, 1103, 100 16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 289, 293 (Ct. App. 2000) (“Tort actions may be brought against the state or its 17 agencies in state court under the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.) but may 18 not be brought in federal court, because the consent to suit contained in the act (Gov. Code, § 19 945) is not a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity.”). 20 Based on the foregoing discussion, the State of California has not waived its 21 sovereign immunity as to claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal court. The CHP is 22 entitled to immunity from suit as to plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims. The result is the same to the 23 24 25 26 4 To the extent that subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law tort claims is premised on the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that “28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity for supplemental state law claims.” Stanley v. Trustees of Cal. State Univ., 433 F.3d 1129, 1133-34 (9th Cir. 2006). 6 1 extent that plaintiff has attempted to plead any state law tort claims. Because plaintiff’s claims 2 against the CHP are barred as a matter of law, the undersigned recommends that all of plaintiff’s 3 claims against the CHP be dismissed with prejudice. 4 IV. CONCLUSION 5 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant California 6 Highway Patrol’s motion to dismiss is submitted without oral argument, and the August 11, 2011 7 hearing on the motion is vacated. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E. Dist. Local Rule 230(g). 8 It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 9 1. Defendant California Highway Patrol’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 4) be 2. All of plaintiff’s claims against the defendant California Highway Patrol 10 11 12 13 granted. be dismissed, and that defendant California Highway Patrol be dismissed from this action. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 14 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen 15 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 16 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also E. Dist. Local Rule 304(b). 17 Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 18 Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed with the court and served on 19 all parties within fourteen days after service of the objections. E. Dist. Local Rule 304(d). 20 Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 21 Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 22 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 24 25 26 IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. DATED: August 3, 2011 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
