Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00489/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00489-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEAN MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

BUTTE COUNTY, BUTTE COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, PERRY

RENIFF, SHAROL STRICKLAND,

CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL

GROUP, INC., and Does One

through Twenty, inclusive,

Defendants. 

2:06-cv-00489-DFL-KJM

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION 

AND ORDER

Defendant Sharol Strickland (“Strickland”), Clerk of the 

Butte County Superior Court, moves to dismiss plaintiff Jean

Miller’s (“Miller”) § 1983 claim against her. For the reasons

stated below, the court: (1) dismisses with prejudice Miller’s 

§ 1983 claim against Strickland in her official capacity; (2)

dismisses Miller’s § 1983 claim against Strickland in her

individual capacity with leave to amend within 90 days; and (3)

dismisses with prejudice any § 1983 claim against Strickland

based on respondeat superior.

Case 2:06-cv-00489-JAM -DAD Document 19 Filed 07/17/06 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

I.

On February 25, 2004, Miller was sentenced to an Alternative

Work Program in lieu of jail time for a misdemeanor conviction. 

(Id. ¶ 13.) On March 9, 2004, Miller reported to the Butte

County Jail to begin the program. (Id. ¶ 15.) Miller alleges

that she had with her an accurate copy of the sentencing

document, which indicated that she had been sentenced to the

program. (Id. ¶ 15.) However, a Sheriff’s Department employee

put her in jail instead. (Id. ¶ 16.) Miller allegedly protested

and showed the employee the sentencing document, but the employee

said it “didn’t matter” and that he had instructions directly

from Sheriff Perry Reniff to take Miller to jail. (Id. ¶ 16.) 

Miller was jailed for 35 days, and when released, the sentencing

document she had with her when she reported to the jail was

missing. (Id. ¶¶ 16-18.)

In her complaint, Miller alleges that someone altered the

sentencing order, but she fails to identify who did so. (Id. ¶

14.) Not until her opposition to Strickland’s motion to dismiss

did Miller allege that Strickand or one of her employees

intentionally forged or falsified the document. (Opp’n at 3.) 

II.

A. Strickland in her Official Capacity

Strickland argues that as Clerk of the Superior Court she

acts on behalf of the State of California and, therefore, is not

subject to suit under § 1983. (Mot. at 5.) Strickland is

Case 2:06-cv-00489-JAM -DAD Document 19 Filed 07/17/06 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

correct. Superior Courts are “arms of the state” entitled to

Eleventh Amendment immunity, and a plaintiff cannot bring a § 1983

claim against a Superior Court or its employees in their official

capacity. Simmons v. Sacramento County Super. Ct., 318 F.3d

1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003). Court clerks are Superior Court

employees. Cal. Gov. Code § 811.9. In addition, state officials

are not “persons” under § 1983 when acting in their official

capacity and, therefore, are not subject to liability under this

statute. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71,

109 S.Ct. 2304 (1989). 

All claims against Strickland in her official capacity are

dismissed with prejudice.

B. Strickland in her Individual Capacity

“The Eleventh Amendment does not erect a barrier against

suits that impose individual and personal liability on state

officials under § 1983.” Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30-31, 112

S.Ct. 358 (1991). Therefore, Strickland is not immune from

liability to the extent that she is sued in her individual

capacity. Nonetheless, Miller failed to allege in the complaint

any act by Strickland that violated § 1983. (Mot. at 5.) Miller

merely alleges that someone altered the document; she does not

specifically identify Strickland. However, Miller claims in her

opposition that, if allowed to amend her complaint, she would

allege that Strickland altered the document. Therefore, the court

grants Miller 90 days to amend the complaint to allege a claim

against Strickland in her individual capacity. The 90 day period

Case 2:06-cv-00489-JAM -DAD Document 19 Filed 07/17/06 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

is adequate time for Miller to take any discovery on this issue

and make a decision, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, whether

to go forward with a claim against Strickland. 

C. Respondeat Superior Liability

“There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983.” 

Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 937 (9th Cir. 2002). Therefore,

the court dismisses with prejudice any § 1983 claim against

Strickland based on respondeat superior.

III.

For the reasons stated above, the court: (1)DISMISSES with

prejudice Miller’s § 1983 claim against Strickland in her official

capacity; (2) DISMISSES Miller’s § 1983 claim against Strickland

in her individual capacity with leave to amend within 90 days of

the file date of this order; and (3) DISMISSES with prejudice any

§ 1983 claim against Strickland based on respondeat superior.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2006 

/s/ David F. Levi 

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00489-JAM -DAD Document 19 Filed 07/17/06 Page 4 of 4