Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01379/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01379-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

1 10cv1379 BEN (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE A BORJA, CDCR #T-54311,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. GONZALEZ; J. GONZALEZ; M.

ALVAREZ; C. NEAL; DELEAT,

Defendants, 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 10cv1379 BEN (WMc)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

I.

INTRODUCTION

In this prisoner civil rights case, Jose A. Borja (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff alleges a violation of

his federal constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and the

Fourteenth Amendment’s right to equal protection under the law. [Doc. No. 1 - Complaint at p. 2.] On

October 25, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain causes of action in the Complaint;

namely Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim and Plaintiff’s claim for monetary

damages against Defendants in their official capacities. [Doc. No. 14 - Defs. Motion at 2:8-10] 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge Roger T. Benitez

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.3 of the United States District Court for the

Southern District of California. After reviewing the pleadings and parties’ briefs, for the reasons set

Case 3:10-cv-01379-CAB-WMC Document 18 Filed 12/15/10 Page 1 of 5
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 10cv1379 BEN (WMc)

forth below, the Court recommends that the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants be GRANTED/DENIED

as discussed in detail below.

II. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges on August 8, 2007, he was attacked by two fellow inmates in the recreation yard

at Calipatria State Prison. Plaintiff claims the correctional officers supervising the recreation yard that

day failed to provide proper oversight and placed him in danger due to their inattention. Plaintiff alleges

he had to run to safety after five to seven minutes of being attacked and receiving 44 stab wounds from

handmade weapons. [Doc. No. 1 - Complaint at p. 3.] Plaintiff asserts his belief that, if personnel had at

the very least been manning the gun tower on the day of the incident, his injuries would have been

prevented or reduced. [Doc. No. 1 - Complaint at pp. 4-6.] Plaintiff claims correctional staff was aware

of the high likelihood of violence on the recreation yard due to Calipatria State Prison’s history of

stabbings. Id. Plaintiff claims Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments. [Doc. No. 1 - Complaint at p. 10.] Plaintiff sued Defendants in their individual and

official capacities. [Doc. No. 1 - Complaint at p. 2.] Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, compensatory

damages and punitive damages. [Doc. No. 1 - Complaint at p. 11.] 

III

STANDARD OF REVIEW - Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a “short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require

‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A claim is sufficiently plausible when the facts pled “allow the court to

draw the reasonable inferences that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). If an adverse litigant believes that its opponent has failed to

meet the mandates of Rule 8(a)(2), it may raise a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). 

A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of a claim (Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732

(9th Cir. 2001)), and should be granted if a plaintiff’s complaint fails to contain “enough facts to state a

Case 3:10-cv-01379-CAB-WMC Document 18 Filed 12/15/10 Page 2 of 5
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 10cv1379 BEN (WMc)

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “In sum, for a complaint to

survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences from that

content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. United States

Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949).

IV.

DISCUSSION

A. Equal Protection

The “Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall ‘deny

to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,’ which is essentially a direction

that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center,

Inc. 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). “Equal protection rights are violated when (1) a person is a member of

an identifiable class; (2) that person is intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated;

and (3) there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528

U.S. 562, 564 (2000). Thus, Plaintiff must allege facts which show: (a) he is a member of a protected

class, and (b) Defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against him because of his

membership in that class. Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 359-60 (1991); Village of Arlington

Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977). 

Defendants claim Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a Fourteenth Amendment

claim. Specifically Defendants assert Plaintiff has not established he is a member of a protected class or

that similarly situated individuals were treated differently with a rational basis. 

After review of Plaintiff’s Complaint and opposition brief, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to

state a claim for denial of equal protection because he has failed to allege facts which demonstrate he is

a member of a protected class. Village of Willowbrook, 528 U.S. at 564. Prisoners are not a suspect

class for equal protection purposes, nor are they entitled to the same treatment received by other inmates

simply because they are all incarcerated. See Norvell v. Illinois, 373 U.S. 420, 83 S. Ct. 1366, 10

L.Ed.2d 456 (1963); Mayner v. Callahan, 873 F.2d 1300, 1302 (9th Cir. 1989). Although Plaintiff

alleges stabbings are a frequent occurrence at Calipatria State Prison, he has not alleged he was treated

differently from other inmates who were attacked at the institution. The Complaint lacks the necessary

allegations to support an equal protection claim, IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the

Case 3:10-cv-01379-CAB-WMC Document 18 Filed 12/15/10 Page 3 of 5
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 10cv1379 BEN (WMc)

Court GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s equal protection claim for failing to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has not previously been granted leave to amend, and it

may be possible for him to plead additional facts to adequately state an equal protection claim. See

McQuillon v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 2004) (“leave to amend should be granted

unless the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts, and should be granted

more liberally to pro se plaintiffs.”) For these reasons, IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED the

Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim be dismissed with leave to amend.

B. Eleventh Amendment Immunity For Official Acts

Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s monetary damages claim to the extent it is based on acts

taken in an official capacity. While the Eleventh Amendment bars a prisoner’s section 1983 claims

against state actors sued in their official capacities, it does not bar damage actions against state officials

in their personal capacities. Will v. Michigan, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989); Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 31

(1991). In addition, it does not bar actions against state officers in their official capacities if the plaintiff

seeks injunctive relief. Chaloux v. Killeen, 886 F.2d 247, 252 (9th Cir. 1989) 

Here, Plaintiff has sued Defendants in their official and individual capacities. Plaintiff’s prayer

also seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief. So while Plaintiff is

foreclosed from seeking money damages against Defendants in their official capacity, he may still seek

injunctive relief against the Defendants in their official capacity as well as money damages against the

Defendants in their individual capacity.. Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED Defendants’ motion

to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for money damages ONLY against Defendants in their official capacity be

GRANTED with prejudice. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief may not be dismissed on these

grounds. See Chaloux, 886 F.2d at 252.

V.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order:

1. GRANTING Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for money damages against

Defendants in their official capacity with prejudice;

Case 3:10-cv-01379-CAB-WMC Document 18 Filed 12/15/10 Page 4 of 5
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

5 10cv1379 BEN (WMc)

2. GRANTING Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state an equal protection claim

without prejudice; and that Plaintiff be granted leave to amend his equal protection claim; and

3. Finding that if Plaintiff does not amend his complaint within 30 days, Plaintiff’s current

complaint will be the operative complaint in this matter and the only actionable remaining claim would

be Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for cruel and unusual punishment, which Plaintiff can pursue for

money damages against Defendants in their individual capacities and for which he can seek injunctive

relief against Defendants in their official capacities.

IT IS ORDERED that no later than January 4, 2011 any party to this action may file written

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the court and

served on all parties no later than January 18, 2011. The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may result in waiver of the right to raise those objections on appeal

of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 15, 2010

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:10-cv-01379-CAB-WMC Document 18 Filed 12/15/10 Page 5 of 5