Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02062/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02062-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

EDWARD BOWDEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-02062 WBS AC 

ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT ON 

THE PLEADINGS

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Edward Bowden brought this civil rights 

action against, inter alia, the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) for failing to provide 

him with adequate medical care pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

state law. (Docket No. 1.) CDCR now moves for judgment on the 

pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). (Docket 

No. 28.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition to CDCR’s motion. 

The standard for assessing a Rule 12(c) motion for

judgment on the pleadings is “substantially identical to [the] 

analysis under Rule 12(b)(6).” Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 

Case 2:18-cv-02062-WBS-AC Document 30 Filed 06/10/20 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012); see also U.S. ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. 

Dynamics C4 Sys., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Rule 

12(c) is ‘functionally identical’ to Rule 12(b)(6) and [] ‘the 

same standard of review’ applies to motions brought under either 

rule.”). In sum, a “judgment on the pleadings is properly 

granted when, taking all the allegations in the non-moving 

party's pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law.” Fajardo v. Cty. of L.A., 179 F.3d 

698, 699 (9th Cir. 1999). 

The Eleventh Amendment bars any suit against a state or 

state agency absent a valid waiver or abrogation of its sovereign 

immunity. Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996). 

The CDCR is one such state agency that is immune from liability 

under the Eleventh Amendment. See, e.g., Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of 

Corrs., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The district court 

correctly held that the California Department of Corrections and 

the California Board of Prison Terms were entitled to Eleventh 

Amendment immunity.”); Fulcher v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs., 297 Fed. 

App’x 645, 646 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he California Department of 

Corrections ... is a state agency that is immune from liability 

under the Eleventh Amendment.”). CDCR has not waived its 

Eleventh Amendment immunity in this case, (see CDCR Answer at 5 ¶ 

8 (Docket No. 15)), and California “has not waived its Eleventh 

Amendment immunity with respect to claims brought under § 1983 in 

federal court.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 

(9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the court will grant CDCR’s motion 

for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiff’s federal claims. 

Plaintiff also brings state law claims against CDCR for 

Case 2:18-cv-02062-WBS-AC Document 30 Filed 06/10/20 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

violation of California Welfare and Institutions Code § 15657 and 

intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Compl. ¶¶ 91-94, 

107-09 (Docket No. 1-1).) However, under the California law a 

public entity is not liable for any injury to a prisoner. See

Cal. Gov. Code § 844.6(a)(2). “Injury” is broadly construed to 

cover both physical and emotional damage. Cal. Gov. Code § 

810.8. Consequently, CDCR as an entity cannot be held liable for 

plaintiff’s injuries. Furthermore, CDCR’s immunity as a state 

agency under the Eleventh Amendment extends to immunize them from

liability under plaintiff’s state law claims. See Pennhurst 

State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 121 (1984); see

also Ashker v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs., 112 F.3d 392, 394 (9th Cir. 

1997) (noting a suit against CDCR arising under state law would 

be barred by the Eleventh Amendment). Accordingly, the court 

will also grant CDCR’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to 

plaintiff’s state law claims.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the California Department 

of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s motion for judgment on the 

pleadings be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Because the 

deficiencies in plaintiff’s complaint can be cured, no further 

leave to amend will be permitted.1

Dated: June 9, 2020

1 Although Rule 12(c) does not mention leave to amend, 

courts have the discretion to grant a Rule 12(c) motion with 

leave to amend. See, e.g., Woodson v. California, No. 2:15-cv01206 MCE CKD, 2017 WL 2654821, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2017). 

However, “a district court may dismiss without leave where a 

plaintiff’s proposed amendments would fail to cure the pleading 

deficiencies and amendment would be futile.” See Cervantes v. 

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1031 (9th Cir. 

2011).

Case 2:18-cv-02062-WBS-AC Document 30 Filed 06/10/20 Page 3 of 3