Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01397/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01397-0/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

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID ROBERT BELL

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION;

in entity defendant; DR. M. GLYNN, in

his capacity as Chief Medical Officer

(CMO); DR. KYLE SEELEY, in his

capacity as Doctor and Chief Medical

Executive (CME); DR. ROBERT

WALKER, in his capacity as Doctor and

Chief Surgeon; DR. K. THOMPSON, in

his capacity as Primary Care Physician;

NURSE PAMELA VELARDI, in her

capacity as a Nurse Practitioner; NURSE

BERSAMIN, in her capacity as a

Registered Nurse; JOHN DOES 1-

through-10, in their respective capacities

as medical staff and personnel, Inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-1397-BEN-PCL

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

(Doc. 29)

I. INTRODUCTION

David Robert Bell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner incarcerated in Corcoran, California,

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. (See Docs. 1, 10.) Plaintiff’s complaint alleges

violations of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, et seq., and he seeks monetary relief

jointly and severally against each defendant. (See Doc. 1.) 

Case 3:14-cv-01397-BEN-PCL Document 51 Filed 07/06/15 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

27

28

Presently before the Court is defendant California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation’s (the “CDCR”) motion to dismiss itself from the suit pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 29.) The CDCR asserts immunity from suit in federal court

pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. (Id.) 

For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant CDCR’s Motion to Dismiss. 

II. BACKGROUND1/

Plaintiff was formerly incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility and

the RJDCF-Medical Facility-D. (Doc. 1 at 6.) While incarcerated, Plaintiff made numerous

complaints related to spinal and shoulder pain. (See Doc. 1, passim.) 

Plaintiff’s first request for medical care was dated May 4, 2012. (Id. at 6.) He was

examined by Nurses Bersamin and Velardi three days later, on May 7, 2012, and the nurses

made no diagnosis regarding his condition. (Id. at 6.) Similar requests were made on May 15,

July 2, and July 3, 2012. (Id.) 

Eventually Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Martinez on July 17, 2012, and an MRI was

scheduled. (Id. at 12-13.) The MRI took place on August 4, 2012. (Id. at 12.) Following the

MRI, Plaintiff was transported to Tri-City Medical Center for care. (Id. at 13.) After a second

MRI at Tri-City Medical Center, Dr. Kevin Yoo (a Tri-City doctor) told Plaintiff that his,

“condition could have been treated with antibiotics for para-spinal abscess,” and that Plaintiff

“had not been receiving ‘proper medical treatment at the prison’ and not in a ‘timely manner’.”

(Id.) Dr. Yoo concluded that “surgery was inevitable because plaintiff was ‘too far along’ and his

abscess was congruently attached to a ‘nerve root’.” (Id.)

Shortly after the surgery Plaintiff continued to complain that his lower back and legs were

in pain. (Id. at 14.) He contacted Dr. Yoo at Tri-City Medical Center, who examined Plaintiff via

“Telemedicine,” and prescribed 30mg morphine, twice daily, and ordered another MRI with

higher contrast of the lumbosacral spine. (Id.) On the same day, Dr. Thompson, a doctor at

Avenal State Prison, examined Plaintiff and asserted that Dr. Yoo was merely a consultant, while

1. For the purposes of this Motion to Dismiss, all allegations in the Complaint, Doc. 1, are

assumed to be true. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002).

14-cv-1397-BEN-(PCL)

2

Case 3:14-cv-01397-BEN-PCL Document 51 Filed 07/06/15 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

27

28

Dr. Thompson was the attending physician. (Id.) Dr. Thompson disagreed with Dr. Yoo’s

prescription of morphine, but agreed to schedule another MRI. (Id.)

Plaintiff underwent a third MRI on December 22, 2012. (Id. at 15.) Following the MRI,

he underwent surgery to remove a “mass” from his lower lumbar spine, and had a titanium rod

implanted in his back. (Id. at 15-16.)

III. STANDARD FOR REVIEW

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint may be dismissed for

failure to state a cognizable legal theory or for failure to state sufficient facts under a cognizable

legal theory. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir.2001). When reviewing the

sufficiency of a complaint, the court must assume the truth of all factual allegations and construe

them in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895

(9th Cir.2002).

IV. DISCUSSION

Defendant CDCR, an agency of the state of California, seeks to be dismissed from the

Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis that it is immune to this suit pursuant to the

Eleventh Amendment. (Doc. 29-1, at 2-3.) 

In general, the Eleventh Amendment prohibits private individuals from bringing suits for

money damages against the state. U.S. Const. amend. XI. Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517

U.S. 44, 72-76 (1996); see also Taylor v. Westly, 402 F.3d 924, 929 (9th Cir.2005). A state may

waive immunity to such suits, but “In the absence of a waiver by the state or a valid

congressional override, under the Eleventh Amendment, agencies of the state are immune from

private damage actions or suits for injunctive relief brought in federal court.” Dittman v.

California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025–26 (9th Cir.1999); Pittman v. Oregon, Employment Dept., 509

F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007). Federal courts recognize that States’ Eleventh Amendment

immunity were not abrogated when it enacted 42 U.S.C. section 1983 or other provisions within

that act, see Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341 (1979); indeed, “[the Eleventh Amendment]

jurisdictional bar applies regardless of the name of relief sought.” Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp.

v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984).

14-cv-1397-BEN-(PCL)

3

Case 3:14-cv-01397-BEN-PCL Document 51 Filed 07/06/15 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

27

28

Regarding prisoner lawsuits against the CDCR, the Ninth Circuit has held that the CDCR

is an arm of the state and therefore immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Brown v.

California Dept of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir.2009) (“district court correctly held that the

California Department of Corrections and the California Board of Prison Terms were entitled to

Eleventh Amendment immunity.”)

Here, Plaintiff’s prayer for relief seeks compensatory damages in excess of $1,000,000

and punitive damages in excess of $350,000 from the defendants. (Doc. 1 at 35.) Because

Plaintiff is seeking only monetary damages he is precluded from bringing suit against state

agencies, such as the CDCR, without a waiver of immunity or Congressional abrogation thereof. 

Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025–26 (9th Cir.1999); Pittman v. Oregon, Employment

Dept., 509 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff does not allege that such a waiver has been

tendered by the CDCR, nor does he allege that Congress has overridden the protection afforded

the State of California by the Eleventh Amendment. (See Doc. 1.)Further, the CDCR has

asserted rather than waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. (See Doc. 29.)

Therefore, because the Plaintiff is seeking only monetary damages against a state agency,

his claims against the CDCR should be dismissed.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, defendant CDCR’s Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 29, is

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: July 6, 2015 

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

cc: The Honorable Roger Benitez

 All Parties and Counsel of Record

14-cv-1397-BEN-(PCL)

4

Case 3:14-cv-01397-BEN-PCL Document 51 Filed 07/06/15 Page 4 of 4