Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01654/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01654-3/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----

KEITH CHANDLER,

NO. CIV. S-05-1654 WBS PAN

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

PETE WILSON, Governor of the

State of California, In His

Official and Individual

Capacities; the STATE OF

CALIFORNIA; the CALIFORNIA

YOUTH AND ADULT CORRECTIONAL

AGENCY; JOE SANDOVAL,

Secretary, Youth & Adult

Correctional Agency, In His

Official and Individual

Capacities; the CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS; TED

RICH, Chief Executive Officer,

California Board of Prison

Terms, In His Official and

Individual Capacities; THOMAS

GIAQUINTO, Commissioner,

California Board of Prison

Terms, In His Official and

Individual Capacities; CAROL

BENTLEY, Commissioner,

California Board of Prison

Terms, In Her Official and

Individual Capacities; and

DOES 1-25,

Defendants.

 ----oo0oo---- 

Case 2:05-cv-01654-WBS-PAN Document 38 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 7
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

Plaintiff Keith Chandler’s complaint alleges six causes

of action against defendants: (1) violation of plaintiff’s

constitutional rights, actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (2)

“abuse of process”, (3) false imprisonment, (4) malicious

prosecution, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress,

and (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Compl.) On

November 3, 2005, this court held that defendants California

Board of Prison Terms (presently the California Board of Parole

Hearings) (“BPT”), Ted Rich, Thomas Giaquinto, and Carol Bentley

were absolutely immune from suit and dismissed plaintiff’s claims

against them. That order was amended on January 17, 2006 to

change the immunity afforded to defendant Rich from absolute to

qualified. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),

defendants State of California and the Youth and Adult

Correctional Agency (presently the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation) (“CDCR”) now move for dismissal

of the federal and state claims against them.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The facts of this case have been thoroughly presented

in this court’s orders of November 3, 2005 and January 17, 2006,

respectively addressing certain defendants’ motion to dismiss and

plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the court’s decision to dismiss. 

Another restatement of the facts here is therefore not warranted. 

The court simply notes that the defendants behind the instant

motion urge this court to dismiss plaintiff’s federal claims

against them because these defendants are not “persons” within

the reach of § 1983. (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss 3-4.) 

Additionally, they argue that they are not the proper subjects of

Case 2:05-cv-01654-WBS-PAN Document 38 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 7
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

claims for punitive damages. (Id. at 4.)

II. Discussion

A. Legal Standard

On a motion to dismiss, the court must accept the

allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable

inferences in favor of the pleader. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.

232, 236 (1974); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972). The court

may not dismiss for failure to state a claim “unless it appears

beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support

of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Van Buskirk v.

CNN, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Hishon v.

King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). In other words,

dismissal is appropriate only when the plaintiff fails to put

forth either: (1) a cognizable legal theory, or (2) sufficient

allegations of fact under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri

v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

B. Plaintiff’s Federal Claims

Section 1983 of Title 42 reads, in part: “Every person

who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom,

or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United

States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or

immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable

. . . .” (emphasis added). A state is not a person who can be

sued for damages under § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State

Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Likewise, state agencies are not

persons within the meaning of § 1983. Ceballos v. Garcetti, 361

F.3d 1168, 1183 n.11 (9th Cir. 2004); Maldonado v. Harris, 370

Case 2:05-cv-01654-WBS-PAN Document 38 Filed 01/24/06 Page 3 of 7
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

In deciding this motion, the court expresses no opinion 1

on the soundness of defendants’ punitive damages arguments.

4

F.3d 945, 951 (9th Cir. 2004). Therefore, plaintiff’s § 1983

cause of action against defendants State of California and CDCR

must be dismissed.

C. Plaintiff’s State Law Claims

Plaintiff does not object to the dismissal of the

federal claim against the state and CDCR. (Pl.’s Reply to Mot.

to Dismiss 1.) However, he does argue that the court should

refuse to dismiss the remaining state law claims against these

defendants because they failed to brief this issue. (Id.) 

Admittedly, defendants do not provide grounds for dismissing the

state claims in their entirety and only argue that punitive

damages (one form of relief available under some of the state

claims) are not available against the state or CDCR. (Defs.’ 1

Mot. to Dismiss 4.) However, defendants still at least raised

the issue, even if they did not elaborate on their reasons for

dismissal. Moreover, a district court may sua sponte determine

whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law

claims. Ballard v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc., 186 F.R.D. 589,

599 (E.D. Cal. 1999); see also Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114

F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[A] federal district court with

power to hear state law claims has discretion to keep, or decline

to keep, them under the conditions set out in § 1367(c).”).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline

to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if

“the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has

original jurisdiction . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In this

Case 2:05-cv-01654-WBS-PAN Document 38 Filed 01/24/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

case, the only federal law claim over which the court had

original jurisdiction was § 1983. To date, given the holding

above, the court has dismissed this claim as to defendants State

of California, CDCR, BPT, Rich, Giaquinto, and Bentley. Thus,

the only remaining defendants with a federal claim against them

are Governor Pete Wilson and Joe Sandoval, who have not yet been

served.

Significantly, plaintiff has a pending motion to

dismiss, without prejudice, these remaining federal claim

defendants. In an order issued on October 28, 2005, this court

gave plaintiff 30 days to locate and serve these defendants,

which plaintiff failed to do. Plaintiff now asks this court to

dismiss defendants Wilson and Sandoval “from the complaint

without prejudice to future re-addition if and/or when they can

be located.” (Pl.’s Mot. to Dismiss Defs. Wilson & Sandoval 2.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) instructs courts

to “dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant or

direct that service be effected within a specified time” if

“service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a

defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint . . .

.” Pursuant to the language of the Rule, the court may only

dismiss a complaint without prejudice for failure to complete

service. Bann v. Ingram Micro, Inc., 108 F.3d 625, 626 (5th Cir.

1997) (“[D]ismissal with prejudice can never be based on Rule

4(m)’s 120 day requirement.”); Lucrecia v. Samples, No.

C-93-3651, 1994 WL 269732, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 1994) (“FRCP

4 only authorizes a dismissal without prejudice.”). Accordingly,

defendants Wilson and Sandoval, pursuant to plaintiff’s motion,

Case 2:05-cv-01654-WBS-PAN Document 38 Filed 01/24/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

are hereby dismissed without prejudice.

Having dismissed these parties, plaintiff now has no

federal claim against any of the remaining defendants. 

Consequently, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court

declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s

remaining state law claims.

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff did not oppose defendants State of California

and CDCR’s motion to dismiss the federal claims against them. 

Moreover, dismissal of plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against these

defendants was warranted under controlling case law. In

addition, because the court herein grants plaintiff’s motion to

dismiss defendants Wilson and Sandoval, no federal claims remain

as to any of the defendants in this case. Plaintiff has not

presented, nor is the court aware of, any factors weighing in

favor of the court’s continuing exercise of supplemental

jurisdiction, and at oral argument, counsel for plaintiff

conceded that dismissal of his state law claims is also

warranted. Consequently plaintiff’s state law claims will be

dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

(1) defendants State of California and CDCR’s motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s § 1983 claim as to them be, and the same

hereby is, GRANTED.

(2) plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants Wilson and

Sandoval be, and the same hereby is GRANTED, and this action is

hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as against said defendants.

(3) plaintiff’s remaining state law claims be, and the

Case 2:05-cv-01654-WBS-PAN Document 38 Filed 01/24/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

same hereby are, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and this action is hereby DISMISSED. 

DATED: January 23, 2006

Case 2:05-cv-01654-WBS-PAN Document 38 Filed 01/24/06 Page 7 of 7