Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02003/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02003-0/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 

14-cv-02003-JAH-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID B. TURNER Jr., 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, WILLIAM 

D. GORE, GEORGE BAILEY, OFFICER 

HERNANDEZ, OFFICER FARRIS, 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 14-cv-02003-JAH-JLB 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

GRANTING DEFENDANT STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

[ECF No. 31] 

The Court submits this Report and Recommendation to United States District 

Judge John A. Houston pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 72.1 of 

the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. After a thorough 

review of the operative complaint (ECF No. 6) and Defendant State of California’s 

Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31), this Court RECOMMENDS Defendant State of 

California’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31) be GRANTED. 

I. Procedural History 

On June 4, 2015, Defendant State of California filed a motion to dismiss the 

operative complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that 

“the State of California is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the 

United States Constitution and Plaintiff cannot support his claims against the State of 

Case 3:14-cv-02003-JAH-JLB Document 47 Filed 09/11/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2 

14-cv-02003-JAH-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

California on a respondeat superior theory of liability because a county sheriff does not 

act on behalf of the State of California in administering the jails.” (ECF No. 31 at 2.) 

Also on June 4, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a written opposition to the State’s 

motion to dismiss by July 2, 2015 and set a motion hearing date of August 13, 2015. 

(ECF No. 33.) Over two months have passed since Plaintiff’s deadline to file an 

opposition. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the State’s motion to dismiss. 

II. Standard of Review

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 

(2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 

allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 

A motion to dismiss may be based on either a “‘lack of a cognizable legal theory’ 

or ‘the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.’” Hinds Inv., 

L.P. v. Angioli, 654 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Johnson v. Riverside 

Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008)). Detailed factual allegations 

are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported 

by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly,

550 U.S. at 555). 

Case 3:14-cv-02003-JAH-JLB Document 47 Filed 09/11/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3 

14-cv-02003-JAH-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

III. Analysis 

A. Eleventh Amendment Immunity 

This action arises from an alleged incident wherein San Diego County Sheriff’s 

deputies used force on Plaintiff on December 3, 2013. The alleged incident occurred in 

and at a time when Plaintiff was incarcerated in the George Baily Detention Facility, a 

San Diego County jail. Plaintiff sues the State of California under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 

1985, and 1986 for alleged violation of his Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights. Plaintiff also claims that his rights under California Government 

Code, sections 815.2, 815.6, 820, 844.6, 910, 912(c), and 950 were violated. Defendant 

State of California moves the Court to dismiss this case as pled against it because the 

State of California is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the United 

States Constitution. 

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the State of California “unless 

Congress has abrogated state sovereign immunity under its power to enforce the 

Fourteenth Amendment or a state has waived it.” Holley v. California Dep’t Of Corr., 

599 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Bailey v. Root, No. 10-CV-0367-BTMCAB, 2010 WL 2803950, at *4 (S.D. Cal. July 14, 2010) (the Eleventh Amendment 

“prohibits suits against a state or its agencies or departments for legal or equitable 

relief”). “Both the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court have recognized that the ‘State 

of California has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to claims 

Case 3:14-cv-02003-JAH-JLB Document 47 Filed 09/11/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4 

14-cv-02003-JAH-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

brought under § 1983 in federal court.’” Aleto v. California, No. 15-cv-0842-RGK-JEM, 

2015 WL 4507001, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2015) (citing Dittman v. California, 191 

F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 1999); Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 

241 (1985)); Bell v. California Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., No. 14-CV-1397-BEN-PCL, 

2015 WL 4109819, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 6, 2015) (same). 

Here, Plaintiff does not allege any facts or law demonstrating an abrogation or 

waiver of the State of California’s Eleventh Amendment Immunity applicable to this 

case. Rather, the State of California has asserted its Eleventh Amendment immunity. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against the State of California are subject to dismissal 

pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. 

The State also argues that dismissal is appropriate because there can be no 

respondeat superior liability against the State based on the conduct at issue here. At issue 

here is alleged conduct by certain San Diego County Sheriff’s deputies. The State 

argues, and Defendant County of San Diego does not dispute for purposes of this 

motion,1

 that the San Diego County Sheriff’s deputies are county actors. As such, 

respondeat superior theory of liability against the State would fail. The Court agrees. 

See Streit v. Cnty. of L.A., 236 F.3d 552, 564 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding that sheriffs were 

not listed in the California Constitution as part of the “state executive department” and 

                                                                

1

 Defendant County of San Diego did not file any papers in connection with the State’s motion to 

dismiss. 

Case 3:14-cv-02003-JAH-JLB Document 47 Filed 09/11/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5 

14-cv-02003-JAH-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

were therefore agents of the counties when managing jails instead of the state); Jackson 

v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 755, 766 (9th Cir. 2014) (“a sheriff’s department is a county actor 

when it investigates crime”); Brewster v. Shasta Cnty., 275 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(same). Thus, Plaintiff fails to plead facts demonstrating that Defendant State of 

California is liable for the misconduct alleged. 

B. Civil Local Rules 7.1 and 83.1

The Court also recommends dismissal under Civil Local Rules 7.1.f.3.c and 83.1.a 

of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of California. Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c directs that an opposing party’s failure 

to oppose a motion “may constitute a consent to the granting of [that] motion.” CivLR 

7.1.f.3.c. Similarly, Civil Local Rule 83.1.a directs that failure of a party to comply with 

the Civil Local Rules, or with any order of the court, “may be ground for imposition by 

the court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the inherent 

power of the court, including, without limitation, dismissal of any actions, entry of 

default, finding of contempt, imposition of monetary sanctions or attorneys’ fees and 

costs, and other lesser sanctions.” CivLR 83.1.a. 

District courts have broad discretion to enact and apply local rules, including 

dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local rules. Aloe Vera of Am., Inc. v. 

United States, 376 F.3d 960, 964-65 (9th Cir. 2004) (“All federal courts are vested with 

inherent powers enabling them to manage their cases and courtrooms effectively and to 

Case 3:14-cv-02003-JAH-JLB Document 47 Filed 09/11/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6 

14-cv-02003-JAH-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

ensure obedience to their orders . . . . As a function of this power, courts can dismiss 

cases in their entirety, bar witnesses, award attorney’s fees and assess fines.”); Ghazali v. 

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (affirming grant of an unopposed motion to dismiss 

under local rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to oppose as consent to granting the 

motion). However, before dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, 

courts “weigh[s] several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 

defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases o[n] their merits; and (5) 

the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. 

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986)). That Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this 

action does not excuse his failure to follow the rules of procedure that govern other 

litigants. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow 

the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”). 

Here, Defendant State of California attached a Certificate of Service to its motion, 

representing that the State timely served Plaintiff with the State’s motion to dismiss by 

First-Class Mail at his address of record. (ECF No. 31-1 at 8.) Moreover, the Court 

provided Plaintiff with adequate time to prepare a written opposition to the State’s 

motion. Over two months have passed since Plaintiff’s deadline to file an opposition, and 

still Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. Further, the State’s grounds for an order of 

dismissal are supported by the authority to which it cites. (See ECF No. 31-1.) Thus, the 

Case 3:14-cv-02003-JAH-JLB Document 47 Filed 09/11/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7 

14-cv-02003-JAH-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Court concludes that the majority of the Ghazali factors weigh in favor of dismissal, 

including “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation,” “the court’s need 

to manage its docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to the defendant.” See Ghazali, 46 F.3d 

at 53. 

IV. Conclusion 

For the reasons outlined above, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Defendant 

State of California’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 31) be GRANTED, that Defendant 

State of California be DISMISSED as a party to this action, and that the assigned District 

Judge issue an Order approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation. 

IT IS ORDERED that no later than October 2, 2015, 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 October 9, 2015. The parties are advised 

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise to 

objections on appeal of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 445 (9th 

Cir. 1998). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 11, 2015 

Case 3:14-cv-02003-JAH-JLB Document 47 Filed 09/11/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7