Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01054/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01054-0/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

1

 On September 26, 2005, summons were returned as executed against the following

defendants: the Yolo County Board of Supervisors; California Department of Corrections; and

the Board of Prison Terms and Parole. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN W. DUNIGAN,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-05-1054 DFL GGH PS

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

This action, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, has been referred to the

undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 72-302(c)(21). Presently before the court is defendant

Yolo County’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), filed September 22, 2005. 

Defendant Yolo County contends all of plaintiff’s claims are time barred. No other defendant

has filed a response to the complaint.1 Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, nor did he appear at

the hearing held October 27, 2005. Susan DeNardo appeared on behalf of defendant Yolo

County. 

Case 2:05-cv-01054-DFL-GGH Document 14 Filed 11/23/05 Page 1 of 5
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

2

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his complaint on May 27, 2005. He names as defendants:

California Department of Corrections; Board of Prison Terms and Parole; J.S. Woodford,

Director of Corrections; “Parole & Comm. Sup. Div.”; “CDC Employees: Sergeant Kirkland,

CCII Ms. Lane, Saul Irving, Warden Newman, CCI Chambers, CCII Lofton”; “BPT

Commissioner Schaffell”; “Agent McCarthy”; Sandy Sikes; Art Robinson; “Supervisor

Wilson”; “Yolo County Superior Court Judge Mock”; “Judge Fall”; “Twylight Brooks”; “D.A.

Henderson”; Deputy D.A. James Walker; Yolo County Sheriff Sgt. Fisch #34; “Monroe

Detention Center Employees: Lt. Rademaker #375, LT. Daye #387, C/O Kendricks #436, C/O

Deving #373, C/O Bautista #396, Sgt. Casteneda #404, Sgt. Chan #398, C/O Hundal, C/O

Sykosky #437, C/O Rodriguez #400, C/O Gall #439, C/O Grant, C/O Benvelos #344, C/O

Austin #464, C/o Zetwick, C/O Montero, C/O Oveta”; and, “Parole & Community Sup. Div.

Supervisor Sharron Rocco.” 

The complaint is filed on a form used by prisoners to file a complaint under the

Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although it appears plaintiff is no longer incarcerated, most

of his claims seem to relate to his incarceration. Plaintiff makes numerous allegations against the

defendants, many of which are unintelligible. It appears that plaintiff alleges defendants violated

his civil rights by engaging in or encouraging, among other things, false imprisonment, assault,

battery, slander, sexual harassment, religious persecution, and racial discrimination. In addition

to these vague claims, plaintiff appears to argue that his arrest and conviction for arson was

unlawful, and that his trial counsel was ineffective.

Defendant Yolo County has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6). Defendant Yolo County appears to have understood the complaint to include claims

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for “assault, battery, false imprisonment, slander, and

negligence.” Specifically, defendants construe the complaint to allege that “Yolo County falsely

incarcerated” plaintiff on November 4, 1999, at the Monroe Detention Center on charges of

Case 2:05-cv-01054-DFL-GGH Document 14 Filed 11/23/05 Page 2 of 5
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

3

unlawful burning pursuant to California Penal Code section 452 and reckless driving pursuant to

California Vehicle Code section 23103. (MTD, at p. 2). Further, defendant summarizes

plaintiff’s allegations to include: two assaults by staff at the Monroe Detention Center where

plaintiff was incarcerated from November 4, 1999 through May 10, 2001; sexual harassment due

to false rumors spread by staff that plaintiff is homosexual; and, racial and religious

discrimination by staff. (MTD, at p. 2). Defendant Yolo County argues that these claims should

be dismissed because they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 

ANALYSIS

Rather than deciding to dismiss the allegations in the complaint as time-barred,

the undersigned recommends dismissal based on other threshold issues. First, the complaint does

not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 sets forth general rules of notice pleading in the Federal Courts.

See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 122 S. Ct. 992 (2002). Complaints are required to

set forth (1) the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction rests, (2) a short and plain statement

of the claim showing entitlement to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief plaintiff seeks. Rule 8

requires only “sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against

them.” McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Even if the factual elements of the cause of action are present, but are scattered

throughout the complaint and are not organized into a “short and plain statement of the claim,”

dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2) is proper. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178

(9th Cir. 1996) (stating that a complaint should set forth “who is being sued, for what relief, and

on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery.” (emphasis added)). A complaint that

fails to comply with rules 8(a) and 8(e) may be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 41(b). Rule 8; Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981)). 

Further, “[t]he propriety of dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 does not depend on

whether the complaint is wholly without merit,” McHenry 84 F.3d at 1179. The complaint in

Case 2:05-cv-01054-DFL-GGH Document 14 Filed 11/23/05 Page 3 of 5
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

2

 “The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the State or its agencies for all types of

relief, absent unequivocal consent by the state.” Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th

Cir.1999) (citing Pennhurst v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S. Ct. 900 (1984)); see also

Durning v. Citibank, N.A., 950 F.2d 1419, 1422-23 (9th Cir. 1991) (stating the Eleventh

Amendment bars virtually all suits seeking relief against a state, an “arm of the state,” or its

agencies). 

Section 1983 does not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. See

Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 344-45, 99 S. Ct. 1139, 1147 (1979). Accordingly, as a general

rule, states cannot be sued in federal court for violating § 1983. The Eleventh Amendment

likewise, in general, bars suits for damages against state officials in their official capacities,

because such a suit is in effect one against the state. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 105 S.

Ct. 3099 (1985). 

Eleventh Amendment immunity also is consistent with the general rule that “states or

governmental entities that are considered ‘arms of the State’ for Eleventh Amendment purposes

are not ‘persons’ under § 1983.” Doe v. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 131 F.3d

836, 839 (9th Cir. 1997) citing Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S. Ct.

2304, 2311 (1989). 

4

this action illustrates the “unfair burdens” imposed by complaints, “prolix in evidentiary detail,

yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity” which “fail to perform the essential functions of a

complaint.” McHenry , 84 F.3d at 1179-80. Based on a thorough review of the complaint, the

court is unable to discern who is being sued, what plaintiff’s theory of relief is, and what claims 

plaintiff intends to allege. 

In addition to this deficiency, the complaint names several defendants who appear

to be immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.2 Although plaintiff has failed to

meaningfully identify some of the defendants named in the complaint, he appears to name at least

two judges and a prosecutor (“Judge Mock, Judge Fall, and D.A. Henderson”). To the extent

these are actual state officials, claims against them relating to plaintiff’s conviction for arson and

other crimes are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The same is true as to other state officials

named in the complaint. 

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-01054-DFL-GGH Document 14 Filed 11/23/05 Page 4 of 5
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

3

 On October 17, 2005, plaintiff filed with the court eighty pages of “exhibits” containing

police and criminal history reports. Defendant Yolo County filed a response to this filing,

arguing that these exhibits should be disregarded since they were filed past the deadline for filing

an opposition to the motion to dismiss. The court has examined these “exhibits” and does not

find them helpful in clarifying the complaint. 

5

Finally, the complaint is largely unintelligible, and plaintiff failed to appear at the

hearing to offer any clarification, nor did he oppose defendant Yolo County’s motion to dismiss

or their understanding of the complaint contained therein.3 

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed with

prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten

(10) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 11/22/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:mb

Dunigan1054.mtd

Case 2:05-cv-01054-DFL-GGH Document 14 Filed 11/23/05 Page 5 of 5