Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01298/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01298-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLENN RAY KEEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01298-AWI-LJO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS CDCR, CSPCORCORAN, AND WOODFORD BE

GRANTED

(Doc. 23)

I. Findings and Recommendations

A. Procedural History

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Glenn Ray Keel

(“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(CDCR), California State Prison - Corcoran (CSP-Corcoran), Jeanne S. Woodford, D. Ortiz, Reed,

J. Payne, and Brendon violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the

United States Constitution. (Doc. 9.) This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint,

filed November 16, 2005. (Id.) 

Pending before the Court is Defendants CDCR, CSP-Corcoran, and Woodford’s motion to

dismiss, filed January 9, 2006, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 23.)

Plaintiff filed an opposition in part and statement of non-opposition in part on February 10, 2006.

(Doc. 27.)

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-01298-AWI-GSA Document 34 Filed 05/30/06 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

27

28

2

B. Legal Standard

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is a challenge to the sufficiency of the pleadings set forth

in the complaint. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should not be granted unless it

appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support the claim to entitle him to

relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229 (1984) (citing Conley v.

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99 (1957)); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners

Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). When addressing a motion to dismiss, a court must

accept as true the complaint’s allegations in question, Hospital Bld. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees,

425 U.S. 738, 740, 96 S.Ct. 1848 (1976), construe the pleading in light most favorable to the party

opposing the motion, and resolve all doubts in the pleader’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S.

411, 421, 89 S.Ct. 1843, reh’g denied, 396 U.S. 869, 90 S.Ct. 35 (1969). The rule of liberal

construction is “particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1261 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915, 113 S.Ct. 321 (1992); Johnson v. State of Calif., 207 F.3d

650, 653 (9th Cir. 2000).

“When a federal court reviews the sufficiency of a complaint, before the reception of any

evidence either by affidavit or admissions, its task is necessarily a limited one. The issue is not

whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to

support the claims.” Gilligan v. Jamco Development Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9th Cir. 1997). A

Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper where there is either a “lack of a cognizable legal theory” or “the

absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balisteri v. Pacifica Police

Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990); Graehling v. Village of Lombard, Ill., 58 F.3d 295, 297

(7th Cir. 1995). 

C. Defendants’ Motion

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights while he was incarcerated at CSP-Corcoran and housed in theSecurity

Housing Unit. Plaintiff’s claims arise from an incident in which he was allegedly attacked and

injured by another inmate. Plaintiff alleges that the other inmate was released intentionally in order

to stage a fight. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to a serious threat

Case 1:05-cv-01298-AWI-GSA Document 34 Filed 05/30/06 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

27

28

3

to his safety and health by staging the fight and then denying him adequate medical care for his

injuries. Plaintiff also alleges a claim for deprivation of a liberty interest with due process of law,

stemming from his placement in conditions of confinement which violated Title 15 regulations.

Defendants move to dismiss the claims against them on the grounds that Plaintiff’s claims

are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and Defendants are not persons within the meaning of

section 1983. In his response, Plaintiff concedes that he did not sue Defendant Woodford in her

individual capacity and that she should be dismissed, but argues that Defendants CDCR and CSPCorcoran should not be dismissed because they may be held liable pursuant to California

Government Code sections 815.2(a) and 845.6. 

The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against an

unconsenting state. Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Co., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir.

1991) (citation omitted); see also Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1122 (1996);

Puerto Rico Aqueduct Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993); Austin v.

State Indus. Ins. Sys., 939 F.2d 676, 677 (9th Cir. 1991). The Eleventh Amendment bars suits

against state agencies as well as those where the state itself is named as a defendant, see Natural

Resources Defense Council v. California Dep’t of Tranp., 96 F.3d 420, 421 (9th Cir. 1996); Brooks,

951 F.2d at 1053; Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (concluding that Nevada

Department of Prisons was a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Mitchell v.

Los Angeles Community College Dist., 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1989), and bars suits for

damages against state officials in their officials capacities. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police,

491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). CDCR, CSP-Corcoran, and Woodford are entitled to Eleventh Amendment

immunity from suit and are therefore not “persons” under section 1983. Will, 491 U.S. at 71.

Defendants are entitled to dismissal.

Plaintiff’s argument that CDCR and CSP-Corcoran are not entitled to dismissal because they

may be held liable under California law is not responsive to any argument set forth in Defendants’

motion to dismiss. Therefore, the Court declines to address the argument. As previously set forth,

Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges claims for violation oftheEighthandFourteenth Amendments

///

Case 1:05-cv-01298-AWI-GSA Document 34 Filed 05/30/06 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

27

28

4

under the United States Constitution, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants are immune

from suit and are entitled to dismissal.

D. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ CDCR, CSPCorcoran, and Woodford’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against them, filed January 9, 2006,

be GRANTED, with prejudice, and Defendants CDCR, CSP-Corcoran, and Woodford be dismissed

from this action. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01298-AWI-GSA Document 34 Filed 05/30/06 Page 4 of 4