Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02297/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02297-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

CHRISTI A. NEWSOME,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2297 DAD PS

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ORDER

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL

SERVICES,

Defendant.

 /

This matter came before the court on February 23, 2007, for a status (pretrial

scheduling) conference. Plaintiff Christi A. Newsome, proceeding pro se, appeared on her own

behalf. Deputy Attorney General Susan Slager appeared on behalf of defendant California

Department of Social Services.

The court addressed defendant’s pending motion to dismiss. The motion was

filed on November 16, 2006, and was initially heard on December 22, 2006. However, plaintiff

had not filed opposition to the motion and was not present for the hearing. Pursuant to the

court’s order filed January 19, 2007, plaintiff filed opposition on January 29, 2007, and

defendant filed a reply on January 30, 2007. The motion having been fully briefed, the court

heard argument from the parties at the status conference.

Case 2:06-cv-02297-DAD Document 24 Filed 02/27/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Defendant’s motion has been brought pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion is a challenge to the court’s

jurisdiction over the subject matter. A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the

sufficiency of the complaint. North Star Int’l v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th

Cir. 1983). Dismissal of the complaint or any claim within it “can be based on the lack of a

cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” 

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

In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court accepts as

true all material allegations in the complaint and construes those allegations, as well as the

reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 

Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex

Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v.

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should be

granted if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the

claims that would entitle him or her to relief. NOW, Inc., 510 U.S. at 256; Hishon, 467 U.S. at

73; Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274-75 (9th Cir. 1993); Palmer v. Roosevelt

Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981).

In her original complaint and in her first amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that

defendant California Department of Social Services violated her rights under the Americans With

Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to make reasonable work place accommodation to her. 

Defendant seeks dismissal on the ground that the Department enjoys absolute immunity with

respect to plaintiff’s ADA claim under the Eleventh Amendment. In her written opposition,

plaintiff argues that Congress abrogated the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity in the ADA.

The Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to suits for damages

brought by private parties against a state or a state agency unless the state or agency consents to

Case 2:06-cv-02297-DAD Document 24 Filed 02/27/07 Page 2 of 4
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

such suit. Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S.

332 (1979); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). The Eleventh

Amendment does not bar suits for prospective injunctive relief against State officials in their

official capacities. Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 437 (2004); Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123

(1908).

Congress may abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when it

unequivocally intends to do so and acts pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority. 

Board of Trustees v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363 (2001). The Supreme Court has determined,

however, that Congress did not validly abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity from suit by

private individuals for money damages under Title I of the ADA. 531 U.S. at 374 & n.9. 

Accordingly, the court finds that defendant California Department of Social Services enjoys

absolute immunity against plaintiff’s ADA claim under the Eleventh Amendment. Defendant is

entitled to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

Sovereign immunity does not bar Title I suits against state officials for

prospective injunctive and declaratory relief. Walsh v. Nevada Dep’t of Human Resources, 471

F.3d 1033, 1036 (9th Cir. 2006). Although plaintiff’s original complaint did not request any

relief that would survive the immunity bar, plaintiff’s amended complaint seeks declaratory and

injunctive relief of a conclusory nature. The court inquired whether plaintiff wishes to amend her

pleading a second time in order to allege facts that would support ADA claims for permissible

declaratory and injunctive relief against an appropriate defendant. Plaintiff indicated that she has

a disability but stated that her disability was not the cause of the events at issue in this case and

that she did not wish to further amend her complaint in this action seeking relief under the ADA.

Having considered all written materials submitted in connection with defendant’s

motion, as well as the parties’ statements at the status conference, the court finds that plaintiff

cannot amend her complaint to state a cognizable claim pursuant to the ADA.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02297-DAD Document 24 Filed 02/27/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s November 16, 2006 motion to dismiss is granted without leave to

amend; and

2. This action is dismissed with prejudice as to plaintiff’s ADA claims and

without prejudice as to any non-ADA claims that might still be available to plaintiff concerning

the matters that gave rise to this action.

DATED: February 26, 2007.

DAD:kw

Ddad1\orders.consent\newsome2297.oascmtd

Case 2:06-cv-02297-DAD Document 24 Filed 02/27/07 Page 4 of 4