Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01397/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01397-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

F~LED 

AUG 2 1 2015 

CLEm(, u.s. D!STHICT COURT 

SOUTHr:m~ DIS'I';{lCT OF CALIFORNIA 

BY ~ c.c. DEPUTY 

---.--.-.--, .. -~.--.. --~-.-~".-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID ROBERT BELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, 

et aI., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 14-cv-1397-BEN (PCL) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION'S MOTION TO 

DISMISS 

Before this Court is a Motion to Dismiss, filed by Defendant California 

19 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). (Docket No. 29.) For the 

20 reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED. 

BACKGROUND 21 

22 Plaintiff David Robert Bell filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 

23 1983, et seq., against CDCR and six individual doctors and nurses, seeking compensatory 

24 and punitive damages. (Docket No.1.) Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated in 

25 Corcoran, California, and is proceeding pro se. 

26 Prior to his transfer to Corcoran, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Richard J. 

27 Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJD") where he made several requests for medical care 

28 related to spinal and shoulder pain. Plaintiff claims that although he was examined by 

1 

14-cv-1397-BEN (peL) 

Case 3:14-cv-01397-BEN-PCL Document 61 Filed 08/21/15 Page 1 of 3
, I ' \, , " 

1 two nurses, they did not make a diagnosis regarding his condition. Plaintiff subsequently 

2 underwent three MRIs and two surgeries, and he now has a titanium rod implanted in his 

3 lower back. (Compi. 12-13, 15-16.) 

4 Plaintiff contends he received inadequate medical care from nurses and doctors at 

5 RJD and Avenal State Prison. (Compi. 6, 12-14.) In support, Plaintiff claims that a Dr. 

6 Yoo, during a visit to Tri-City Medical Center, told Plaintiff that had he received proper 

7 medical treatment, antibiotics would have been sufficient to treat Plaintiffs condition. 

8 (Compi. 13.) According to Plaintiff, Dr. Yoo concluded that "surgery was inevitable 

9 because plaintiff was 'too far along' and his abscess was congruently attached to a 'nerve 

10 root'." (Compi. 13.) 

11 LEGAL STANDARD 

12 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss a complaint 

13 if, taking all factual allegations as true, the complaint fails to state a plausible claim for 

14 relief on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

15 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007). Dismissal is appropriate if the complaint fails to 

16 state enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of 

17 the matter complained of, or if the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory under which 

18 relief may be granted. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. 

19 DISCUSSION 

20 CDCR argues it must be dismissed as a defendant from this case because it is a 

21 state agency immune from suit according the Eleventh Amendment. 

22 The Eleventh Amendment prohibits private individuals from suing a state for 

23 money damages. U.S. Const. amend. XI; Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 

24 72-76 (1996); see also Taylor v. Westly, 402 F.3d 924, 929 (9th Cir. 2005). Unless a 

25 state waives immunity to such suits, "agencies of the state are immune from private 

26 damage actions or suits for injunctive relief brought in federal court." Dittman v. 

27 California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 1999). Further, the states' Eleventh 

28 Amendment immunity was not abrogated by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or other provisions of the 

2 

14·cv-1397-BEN (peL) 

Case 3:14-cv-01397-BEN-PCL Document 61 Filed 08/21/15 Page 2 of 3
1 Civil Rights Act. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hasp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 

2 (1984); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341 (1979). 

3 It is clear that CDCR is a state agency. Brown v. Cal. Dept. of Carr., 554 F 3d 

4 747,752 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that the California Department of Corrections and 

5 Rehabilitation is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment). And, Plaintiff, 

6 suing as a private individual, only seeks monetary damages-particularly $1,000,000 in 

7 compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages. As such, no cognizable legal 

8 theory supports Plaintiff s claim against CDCR, and Plaintiff is precluded from suing 

9 CDCR in this action. 

10 CONCLUSION 

11 The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. CDCR is therefore DISMISSED from the 

12 action. 

13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Dated: August tLl, 2015 

HOll. Rogel! . Benitez 

United States Dishict Judge 

3 

14-cv-1397-BEN (peL) 

Case 3:14-cv-01397-BEN-PCL Document 61 Filed 08/21/15 Page 3 of 3