Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00442/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00442-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEIL C. PETERSON, ) 2:08-cv-00442-GEG-KJM

 )

Plaintiff, ) ORDER*

)

v. ) 

)

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; EDMUND G. )

BROWN JR., in his official capacity)

as the Attorney General of the )

State of California; and COUNTY OF )

NEVADA, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On March 25, 2008, Defendants State of California and Edmund

G. Brown Jr. (“Attorney General Brown”) (collectively “Defendants”)

filed a motion in which they seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint against them with prejudice. Plaintiff filed an opposition

to the motion in which he “admits . . . that as presently worded and

construed, the Complaint is defective in some respects and cannot be

maintained in its present form against defendants State of California

Case 2:08-cv-00442-GEB -GGH Document 19 Filed 05/02/08 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

and Attorney General Brown” (Opp’n at 1:12-15) and he seeks leave to

file a second amended complaint “to allege additional facts . . . with

respect to [Attorney General Brown] to maintain a claim for

declaratory and injunctive relief against Attorney General Brown in

his official capacity and to maintain a Section 1983 claim for damages

against Attorney General Brown in his individual capacity.” (Id. at

12:16-21.) Plaintiff also seeks leave to add the California District

Attorney’s Association as a new defendant to this action; to increase

his prayer for damages from $2,000,000.00 to $5,000,000.00; to add 28

U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) as an additional jurisdictional basis; and “to

make additional and other amendments to the Complaint as appropriate.” 

(Id. at 12:12-22.) 

Plaintiff’s request to file an amended complaint is not

properly noticed and is therefore disregarded. See Posner v. Essex

Ins. Co., Ltd., 178 F.3d 1209, 1222 (11th Cir. 1999) (“Where a request

for leave to file an amended complaint simply is imbedded within an

opposition memorandum, the issue has not been raised properly.”). 

Since Plaintiff concedes that his First Amended Complaint

cannot survive Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the motion to dismiss is

granted and Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is dismissed against

Attorney General Brown and the State of California. Defendants argue

the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. (Mot. at 1:14-16.) 

“Dismissal [with prejudice] is improper unless it is clear . . . that

the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.” Thinket Ink Info.

Res., Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 368 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th Cir.

2004). Since Plaintiff concedes that an amended complaint cannot save

his claims against the State of California or his pending 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 claim for damages against Attorney General Brown in his

Case 2:08-cv-00442-GEB -GGH Document 19 Filed 05/02/08 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

Whether Plaintiff’s proposed amendment, proffered in 1

opposition to the motion, is sufficient to save these claims is not

decided herein.

3

official capacity, (Opp’n at 1:15-17, 2:13-15), those claims are

dismissed with prejudice. Defendants, however, have not shown that

Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive and declaratory relief against

Attorney General Brown “could not be saved by any amendment.”1

Therefore, those claims are dismissed without prejudice. Thinket Ink

Info. Res., Inc., 368 F.3d at 1061 (emphasis added). 

SUMMARY

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

against the State of California is dismissed with prejudice;

Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for damages against Attorney

General Brown in his official capacity is dismissed with prejudice;

and Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against

Attorney General Brown in his official capacity are dismissed without

prejudice. Plaintiff’s request to file a second amended complaint is

disregarded since it has not been properly noticed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:08-cv-00442-GEB -GGH Document 19 Filed 05/02/08 Page 3 of 3