Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00406/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00406-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE FORTY-NINER LEASE, )

RICHARD E. WILMSHURST, AND )

ALAN H. CORELL, )

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

THE DEPARTMENT OF )

TRANSPORTATION, an agency of )

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )

)

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-07-406 OWW/WMW

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND (Doc. 5) AND

DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

WITHIN 30 DAYS OF FILING

DATE OF ORDER 

Richard E. WILMSHURST, proceeding in pro per, and purporting

to act on behalf of himself, The Forty-Niner Lease, and Alan H.

Corell, has filed a “Complaint for a Preliminary Injunction, For

Procedural Due Process Violations in Hearing Process for

Determining the Location and Access to a State Highway, Violation

of Express Promises of Access and Failure to Consider the Highest

Case 1:07-cv-00406-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 05/11/07 Page 1 of 10
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

and Best Use to Financially Benefit the Community of the City of

Angels for Blocked Commercial Property” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Defendant is the Department of Transportation of the State

of California (hereafter Cal-Trans). Jurisdiction is alleged

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391-1392 “et seq.”

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs are residents of

Angels Camp, California and are collectively referred to as 49er.

The Complaint alleges:

1. A bypass of the downtown area of the CITY

OF ANGELS was first in the planning stages in

the early 1940's. At that time the business

community did not want to lose the business

traffic that was going to Big Trees State

Park and Nevada following Highway #4.

2. Cal-Trans agreed to put in a new bridge

in downtown Angels. This modification in the

Highway plan left the bypass planning in

limbo until approximately 1989 when Highway #

4 was moved to its present location. At that

time Highway # 4 coming from Stockton was

designed to meet Highway # 49 where Highway

#4 presently meets Highway # 49.

3. When moving Highway # 4 North was first

considered in the 1940's the new Highway was

planned to bypass Angels Camp. Since that

planning took place, over sixty (60) years

ago, the small town of Altaville voted to

become part of the City of Angels by

annexation. Since that time a good part of

the new business area has moved north and the

new Highway no longer bypasses the City of

Angels. Cal-Trans has designed the new

roadway to divide the new commercial area.

4. Over the years, Cal-Trans has had public

hearings to show the community three plans of

crossing the City of Angels to meet Highway

#4 coming west from Vallecito.

5. In 2000 Cal-Trans developed the Angels

Camp Bypass Community Impact Assessments. In

Case 1:07-cv-00406-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 05/11/07 Page 2 of 10
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

the publication Cal-Trans promised to provide

all property owners who would have landlocked

parcels new access. 49ER contacted Cal-Trans

in May of 2006, when it learned of Cal-Trans

positive decision not to honor its new access

promise. A true copy of May, 2006 letter to

Cal-Trans and a true copy of said publication

regarding Cal-Trans promise to property

owners is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

6. In the last few years of the new Highway

#4 project, Cal-Trans failed to hold Public

hearings as it changed and modified highway

location and access. In later years CalTrans substituted open house meetings at the

Angels Firehouse. Maps and presentations

were made by Cal-Trans, however, no public

hearings were held.

7. Cal-Trans [sic] current plans propose

that new Highway #4 will go through the

center of nearly fourteen (14) acres that

adjoin Highway # 49 at its present signaled

crossing. 49ER does not object to the CalTrans purchasing the right-of-way through

49ER’s property. The new Highway # 4 problem

evolves from not providing business access to

the five acre parcel to the north, nor the

seven and one-half acre parcel to the south.

8. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit because

Cal-Trans [sic] decision in not allowing

access to the southern seven and one-half

[sic] would prevent 49ER from building a

three franchise car dealership on that

parcel. The failure of not having the new

vehicle dealerships on the seven and one-half

acre parcel would greatly reduce the sales

tax revenues for the City of Angels. 49ER

would estimate over the years the City of

Angels would lose millions of sales tax

revenues. The City and County would also

lose a large amount of advalorem [sic] tax on

the new vehicle dealership building and land

value. Cal-Trans [sic] current proposed

actions conflict with the promises they made

to the people of the City of Angels.

As the First Claim for Relief, the Complaint alleges that

Cal-Trans “violated the Federal Civil Rights of Plaintiff’s [sic]

Case 1:07-cv-00406-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 05/11/07 Page 3 of 10
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

4

by not holding public hearings when changes were made in the

location and access in the new Highway # 4 project” and prays

that “the Court enjoin the Highway # 4 project and require CalTrans to hold public hearings allowing the community to review

and hold public discussions on the changes in the project for

which public hearings were not held.” 

The Second Claim for Relief alleges that Cal-Trans “violated

its promise to Plaintiff’s [sic] that new access would be provide

[sic] all property owners who’s [sic] property was landlocked”

and prays that the Court “order Cal-Trans to provide access from

the new Highway # 4 to the five and seven and one-half acre

parcels designed to accommodate the new vehicle dealerships to be

built on the properties.” 

The Third Claim for Relief alleges:

Cal-Trans is violating the Fifth Amendment

rights of Plaintiff’s [sic] in not allowing

the commercial development of the seven and

one-half acre parcel that will provide the

City of Angels. [sic] Although the

development of the 49ER property is private

it meets the public use requirements of the

Fifth Amendment.

Plaintiff’s [sic] request that this Court

order Cal-Trans to dismiss its suits, THE

POPLE [sic] OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs.

RICHARD WIMSHURST AND ALAN CORELL, et al.,

Calaveras County Superior Court No. CV32956

and THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs.

THE 49ER LEASE, et al., Calaveras County

Superior Court No. CV 32890. These suits in

eminent domain violate Plaintiff’s fifth

Amendment [sic] right to use the property,

not a part of the new Highway #4 proposed

right-of-way, in the highest and best use

that will support the viability of the City

of Angels.

Case 1:07-cv-00406-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 05/11/07 Page 4 of 10
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

5

A. Motion to Dismiss.

Cal-Trans moves to dismiss this action for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, on the ground that a suit in which a state or

one of its agencies is named as defendant is barred by the

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Eleventh Amendment provides:

The Judicial power of the United States shall

not be construed to extend to any suit in law

or equity, commenced or prosecuted against

one of the United States by Citizens of

another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of

any Foreign State.

Claims under § 1983 are limited by the scope of the Eleventh

Amendment. Doe v. Lawrence Livermore Nat. Laboratory, 131 F.3d

836, 839 (9 Cir.1997). “States or governmental agencies that th

are considered ‘arms of the State’ for Eleventh Amendment

purposes” are not “persons” under Section 1983. Will v. Michigan

Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70 (1989).

Plaintiffs acknowledge that the Eleventh Amendment bars

claims against the State for damages. Plaintiffs, relying on Ex

parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), contend that this action is not

barred by the Eleventh Amendment because the Complaint prays for

a prospective injunction “to require CDT to hold the required

public hearings to advise the community and receive live comments

on CDT’s proposed changes in its final highway plan.” 

Plaintiffs’ position is without merit. As explained in

Buchwald v. University New Mex. School of Medicine, 159 F.3d 487,

Case 1:07-cv-00406-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 05/11/07 Page 5 of 10
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

6

495-496 (10 Cir.1998), a case cited by Plaintiffs: th

Ex parte Young recognizes an exception to

Eleventh Amendment immunity under which a

state officer may be enjoined from ‘taking

any steps towards the enforcement of an

unconstitutional enactment, to the injury of

complainant.’ 209 U.S. at 159. The

exception enables federal courts ‘to

vindicate federal rights and hold state

officials responsible to “the supreme

authority of the United States.”’ Pennhurst

State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89,

105 ... (1984) ... The Ex parte Young

exception, however, is a narrow one. First,

there must be an ‘ongoing violation of

federal law.’ ... Second, ‘[i]t applies only

to prospective relief’ and may not be used to

obtain a declaration that a state officer has

violated a plaintiff’s federal rights in the

past. Puerto Rico Aqueduct v. Metcalf &

Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 146 ... (1993). 

Finally, it ‘has no application in suits

against the States and their agencies, which

are barred regardless of the relief sought.’ 

Id.

Here, the Complaint names no state official as a defendant. 

Rather, it names the Department of Transportation, which is an

arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See

Natural Resources Defense Council v. California Dept. of

Transportation, 96 F.3d 420, 422-423 (9 Cir.1996). Therefore, th

as pleaded, the Eleventh Amendment bars this action.

At the hearing, Plaintiff Wilmshurst represented that CalTrans is associated with the United States Department of

Transportation (DOT) in connection with the highway project

alleged in the Complaint and that, therefore, the Eleventh

Amendment does not bar this action. Plaintiff Wilmshurst

requested leave to amend to add the DOT as a party defendant.

Case 1:07-cv-00406-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 05/11/07 Page 6 of 10
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

7

28 U.S.C. § 1653 provides that “[d]efective allegations of

jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or

appellate courts.” The statutory language “suggests that it

addresses only incorrect statements about jurisdiction that

actually exists, and not defects in the jurisdictional facts

themselves.” Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S.

826, 831 (1989). Newman-Green refused to interpret Section 1653

as “empower[ing] federal courts to amend a complaint so as to

produce jurisdiction where none actually existed before.” Id.

“The unequivocal rule of Newman-Green is that section 1653 does

not authorize the addition or elimination of parties in order to

create jurisdiction where jurisdiction does not exist.” Mills v.

State of Maine, 118 F.3d 37, 53 (1 Cir.1997)(rejecting attempt st

to add party in an effort come within scope of Ex Parte Young

doctrine). See also Whitmire v. Victus Ltd., 212 F.3d 885, 888

(5 Cir.2000): th

‘[A] district court’s power to authorize

amendments to cure a competence problem under

section 1653, and by extension under Rule

15(a), turns on the nature of the

jurisdictional defect.’ ... While a district

court can ‘remedy inadequate jurisdictional

allegations,’ it cannot remedy ‘defective

jurisdictional facts.’ ... The danger against

which a court must guard is that a party will

attempt to use § 1653 to retroactively create

subject matter jurisdiction ... The cause for

this concern is readily apparent: ‘never

having had power to act in the matter, the

court never had authority to permit an

amendment to the complaint.’ ....

Accordingly, courts have rejected attempts to

add new claims to satisfy the amount in

controversy necessary for diversity

Case 1:07-cv-00406-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 05/11/07 Page 7 of 10
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

In dismissing the Complaint with leave to amend, no opinion 1

is expressed whether the Amended Complaint will state a claim upon

which relief can be granted or whether other immunities or

affirmative defenses will bar this action or the relief sought.

8

jurisdiction ..., or add new parties to their

case to preserve a federal forum ....

See also Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.14[3], at 15-34 (3rd

ed.1999):

Essentially, a plaintiff may correct the

complaint to show that jurisdiction does in

fact exist; however, if there is no federal

jurisdiction, it may not be created by

amendment.

The Ninth Circuit, however, holds that dismissal based on

Eleventh Amendment immunity is not a dismissal for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction, instead rests on an affirmative

defense. Miles v. State of California, 320 F.3d 986, 989-990

(9 Cir.2003), citing Hill v. Blind Indus. and Serv. of Md., 179 th

F.3d 754, 762 (9 Cir.1993), amended on other grounds, 201 F.3d th

1186 (9 Cir.2000). Consequently, Plaintiffs are not barred th

from amending the Complaint to add the DOT as a party.1

B. Plaintiffs’ Pro Se Status.

Although the Complaint named Richard Wilmshurst and Alan

Corell as plaintiffs proceeding in pro per, the Complaint was

signed only by Mr. Wilmshurst. The opposition to Cal-Trans

motion to dismiss was signed only by Mr. Wilmshurst “J.D. Pro

se”. It is unclear whether Mr. Wilmshurst is an attorney

licensed to practice in the State of California. Plaintiffs are

advised that Rule 83-183(a), Local Rules of Practice, provides in

Case 1:07-cv-00406-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 05/11/07 Page 8 of 10
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

9

pertinent part:

Any individual who is representing himself or

herself without an attorney must appear

personally or by courtesy appearance by an

attorney admitted to the Bar of this Court

and may not delegate that duty to any other

individual, including husband or wife, or any

other party on the same side appearing

without an attorney. 

"Although a non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own

behalf, that privilege is personal to him ... He has no authority

to appear as an attorney for others than himself." C.E. Pope

Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987).

If Mr. Wilmshurst is not an attorney licensed to practice, he may

not represent Mr. Corell in this action, may not sign pleadings

on his behalf, or appear for him in this action. 

Further, Rule 83-183(a) provides that “[a] corporation or

other entity may appear only by an attorney.” The status of the 

Forty-Niner Lease is not described in the Complaint. However, if

the Forty-Niner Lease is a corporation or other entity, the

Forty-Niner Lease may not proceed as a plaintiff in this action

in the absence of an attorney. 

 CONCLUSION

For the reason set forth above:

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND;

2. Plaintiffs shall file a First Amended Complaint in

accordance with this Order within 30 days of the filing date of

this Order. Failure to timely comply will result in the

Case 1:07-cv-00406-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 05/11/07 Page 9 of 10
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

10

dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00406-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 05/11/07 Page 10 of 10