Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01081/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01081-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH KINNARD,

Plaintiff, No. C 10-1081 PJH

v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL

CALIFORNIA STATE DMV,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Pro se plaintiff Kenneth Kinnard filed this action on March 12, 2010, against

defendant California State DMV. Also on March 12, 2010, he filed a motion to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”). The court has reviewed the complaint and finds that the action

must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s claims relate to an alleged illegal lien sale of a trailer belonging to plaintiff. 

In February 2006, plaintiff filed suit in a California state court against ABC Auto Parts and

Pat’s Lien Service, alleging that they had conducted a sale of plaintiff’s trailer without the

due process hearing required under California Civil Code § 3072. 

Plaintiff asserts that in April 2007, he learned from the attorney for Pat’s Lien Service

that defendant California State DMV (“the DMV” – the California Department of Motor

Vehicles) had issued a letter withdrawing permission for the lien sale. Plaintiff then filed a

claim with the DMV, and subsequently amended his state court complaint to allege claims

against the DMV under the United States and California Constitutions. 

Plaintiff alleges that in February 2010, his state court case was dismissed, and that

the court declined to accept jurisdiction of his federal constitutional claim, notwithstanding

Case 4:10-cv-01081-PJH Document 4 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

his request that the court “preserve” the federal cause of action.

In the present complaint, plaintiff alleges a claim of due process violations against

DMV, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and under Art. 1,

Sec. 31 of the California Constitution. He seeks damages and costs of suit.

Plaintiff asserts that his claims should be equitably tolled, based on the fact that he

could not have discovered the true facts until June 2007, and also based on the fact that he

was pursuing the action in state court until February 2010. 

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

The court may authorize a plaintiff to file an action in federal court without

prepayment of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is

unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). When a complaint

is filed IFP, it must be dismissed prior to service of process if it is frivolous or malicious,

fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary damages from defendants who are immune from

suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915( e)(2); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226-27 (9th

Cir. 1984). 

A complaint is frivolous for purposes of § 1915(e) if it lacks any arguable basis in fact

or in law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328- 30 (1989). A complaint lacks an

arguable basis in law only if controlling authority requires a finding that the facts alleged fail

to establish an arguable legal claim. Guti v. INS, 908 F.2d 495, 496 (9th Cir. 1990). 

When a complaint is dismissed under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave

to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from

the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. Cato v.

United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal of complaint as frivolous). 

B. Analysis

As plaintiff acknowledges in his complaint, the DMV is an agency of the State of

California. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars from the

federal courts suits against a state by its own citizens, citizens of another state or citizens

Case 4:10-cv-01081-PJH Document 4 Filed 03/29/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

or subjects of any foreign state. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 237-38

(1985). This includes state law claims brought against a state in federal court under the

supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Raygor v. Regents of the University of

Minnesota, 534 U.S. 533, 541-42 (2002). 

Unless a state has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity or Congress has

overridden it, a state cannot be sued regardless of the relief sought. Kentucky v. Graham,

473 U.S. 159, 167 n.14 (1985). This Eleventh Amendment immunity also extends to suits

against a state agency. See, e.g., Brown v. California Dep't of Corrs., 554 F.3d 747, 752

(9th Cir. 2009).

CONCLUSION

Because the DMV is an agency of the State of California, it may not be sued in

federal court. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint must be DISMISSED. As the court finds

that amendment would be futile, the dismissal is WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

The request for leave to proceed IFP is GRANTED. Plaintiff need not pay the filing

fee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-01081-PJH Document 4 Filed 03/29/10 Page 3 of 3