(PC) Manriquez v. Huchins et al, No. 1:2009cv00456 - Document 40 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING In Full 36 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; GRANTING In Part and DENYING In Part 16 Motion to Dismiss: Plaintiffs claims against Defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED AND this action will proceed on Plaintiffs Eight h Amendment claims against Defendants in their individual/personal capacities; DENYING 20 Motion for Verification of Pending Deadline in which to File his Reply to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; DENYING 39 Motion for Extension of Time; Plaintiffs claims for declaratory relief are DISMISSED; Defendants motion for a more definite statement is DENIED, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 9/2/2010. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
(PC) Manriquez v. Huchins et al Doc. 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DANIEL MANRIQUEZ, 10 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00456-OWW-SKO PC Plaintiff, 11 ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS AND v. (Doc. 36) 12 J. HUCHINS, et al., and 13 Defendants. ORDER DENYING MOTIONS 14 (Docs. 20, 39) 15 / 16 17 Plaintiff Daniel Manriquez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 14, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations which 21 recommended that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be partially granted and partially denied. (Doc. 22 #36.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any 23 objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date 24 on which the Findings and Recommendations were served. Plaintiff filed partial objections to the 25 Findings and Recommendations on August 5, 2010. (Doc. #38.) 26 Plaintiff objects to the extent that the Findings and Recommendations recommended that 27 Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities be dismissed due to Eleventh 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Amendment immunity. Plaintiff claims that he is permitted to maintain a suit against Defendants 2 in their official capacities because he is seeking declaratory relief. 3 While the Eleventh Amendment generally bars suits against state officials in their official 4 capacities, there is a limited exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity that permits suits for 5 prospective injunctive relief against a state official in their official capacity. See Doe v. Lawrence 6 Livermore National Laboratory, 131 F.3d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 1997). However, the Court found that 7 Plaintiff was not seeking any prospective relief, declaratory or otherwise, in this lawsuit. Declaratory 8 relief in this case would not serve any prospective purpose as the issues in this case are factually too 9 case specific to permit a general ruling/declaration. A declaration regarding the constitutionality of 10 Defendants’ conduct would do little to eliminate future uncertainty or prevent future litigation. 11 The Court notes that declaratory relief is not appropriate in this case. “Declaratory relief 12 should be denied when it will neither aid in clarifying and settling legal relations in issue nor 13 terminate the proceedings and accord the parties relief from the uncertainty and controversy they 14 faced.” Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1112 (9th Cir. 15 1987). As noted, declaratory relief would not serve any prospective purpose because the issues are 16 too fact-specific to be of any use. Further, in the event that this action reaches trial and the jury 17 returns a verdict in favor of plaintiff, that verdict will be a finding that plaintiff’s constitutional rights 18 were violated. Accordingly, a declaration that defendants violated plaintiff’s rights is unnecessary. 19 The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory relief. 20 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 305, this Court 21 has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court 22 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 23 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 24 1. The July 14, 2010 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED in full; 25 2. Defendants’ December 7, 2009 motion to dismiss is PARTIALLY GRANTED and 26 PARTIALLY DENIED; 27 a. 28 Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED; 2 1 b. 2 This action will proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants in their individual/personal capacities; 3 3. Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory relief are DISMISSED; 4 4. Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement is DENIED; 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: September 2, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3