Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03861/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03861-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Motion for Medical Examination Without Prejudice; 

Further Scheduling Order

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Roberts861mtdmisc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL L. ROBERTS,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-3861 JF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS; DENYING MOTION

FOR MEDICAL

EXAMINATION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; FURTHER

SCHEDULING ORDER

(Docket Nos. 53, 57) 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the instant civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), and PBSP employees. The

Court issued an Order of Service of the complaint on Defendants California Department

of Corrections; Officer T. Travis; Officer D. Luna; Officer B. Chaucer and Warden Joe

McGrath. The Court thereafter dismissed the complaint as to Defendant State Of

California and dismissed with leave to amend Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant “Does”

1-25, employees of the California Department of Corrections. 

**Original filed 3/27/07**

Case 5:04-cv-03861-JF Document 65 Filed 03/27/07 Page 1 of 8
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

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Motion for Medical Examination Without Prejudice; 

Further Scheduling Order

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Roberts861mtdmisc 2

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming eight additional Defendants and alleging one

additional claim. On February 13, 2006, the Court ordered service of the amended

complaint on the additional Defendants and referred this action to the Pro Se Prisoner

Mediation Program. On June 19, 2006, Defendants California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) (hereinafter

“Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss. On July 5, 2006, Magistrate Judge Vadas filed a

mediation report stating that the parties were unable to reach an agreement at the June 16,

2006 mediation. On August 8, 2006, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motions for

appointment of counsel and motion for a temporary restraining order and issued a further

scheduling order on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed a motion for a medical

examination and opposition to the motion to dismiss. Defendants have filed a reply. 

Based upon the papers submitted, the Court will GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss

and issue a further scheduling order set forth below. The Court will DENY Plaintiff’s

motion for a medical examination without prejudice. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Motion to Dismiss

Defendants move to dismiss all claims against them pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because they are not “persons” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and thus the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiff’s claims against them. In his

opposition, Plaintiff maintains that his request for declaratory and injunctive relief likely

will require that the named Defendants make changes in policies and procedures of PBSP

and the CDCR, and thus the Eleventh Amendment does not apply. Plaintiff contends that

because Defendants have responded to his complaint they should be held accountable for

further relief. Defendants have filed a reply alleging that they have not consented to suit. 

 The Eleventh Amendment bars from the federal courts suits against a state by its

own citizens, citizens of another state or citizens or subjects of any foreign state. See

Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 241 (1985). Furthermore, neither a

Case 5:04-cv-03861-JF Document 65 Filed 03/27/07 Page 2 of 8
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

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Motion for Medical Examination Without Prejudice; 

Further Scheduling Order

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Roberts861mtdmisc 3

state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” under § 1983. See

Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). This Eleventh

Amendment immunity also extends to suits against a state agency, see, e.g., Allison v.

California Adult Authority, 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1969) (California Adult Authority

and San Quentin Prison not subject to suit); Bennett v. California, 406 F.2d 36, 39 (9th

Cir.) (California Adult Authority and California Dept. of Corrections not subject to suit),

cert. denied, 394 U.S. 966 (1969), and to suits for damages against state officials acting in

their official capacities, see Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89,

97-121 (1984). Such immunity includes state law claims brought against a state in federal

court under the supplemental jurisdiction statute. See Raygor v. Regents of the

University of Minnesota, et al., 534 U.S. 533, 541-42 (2002). A state official may be

sued for prospective injunctive relief from continuing or impending state action which

violates the federal constitution or a federal statute. See Kentucky v. Graham, 472 U.S.

159, 167 n.14 (1985); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-60 (1908); Armstrong v.

Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019, 1026 (9th Cir. 1997). 

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

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

Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n.14 (1985) (citing Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978));

Confederated Tribes & Bands v. Locke, 176 F.3d 467, 469 (9th Cir. 1999). Consent to

suit by the state “is effective ‘only where stated by the most express language.’” Yakama

Nation v. Washington Dept. of Revenue, 176 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting

Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299, 305 (1990)). 

Here, Plaintiff has named Defendants CDCR and PBSP in his amended complaint. 

Although Plaintiff has requested injunctive and declaratory relief, neither of these

Defendants are subject to the exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity applicable to

prospective injunctive relief; the exception applies only to state officials with the ability

to provide injunctive relief in their official capacities. See Kentucky v. Graham, 472 U.S.

Case 5:04-cv-03861-JF Document 65 Filed 03/27/07 Page 3 of 8
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

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Motion for Medical Examination Without Prejudice; 

Further Scheduling Order

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Roberts861mtdmisc 4

at 167 n.14 (1985); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. at 159-60 (1908). The Court also agrees

that Defendants have not consented to suit in this action. Defendant CDCR filed a waiver

of reply to Plaintiff’s original complaint and did not file an answer to the amended

complaint; instead it filed a motion for the Court to screen Plaintiff’s amended complaint.

See Docket No. 13 (Waiver of Reply; Demand for Jury Trial by Defs. CDCR, Travis,

Luna, and Chaucer) and Docket No. 24 (Motion to Screen Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

by Defs. CDCR, McGrath, Travis, Luna, and Chaucer). Defendant PBSP was not served

with the original complaint and did not file an answer to the original complaint or the

amended complaint. 

Defendants did file an agreement to participate in the Court’s Pro Se Prisoner

Mediation Program and then attended the mediation. However, Defendants’ participation

was conditioned expressly on the fact that they would not waive their right to raise any

defenses, including an Eleventh Amendment immunity defense. See Docket no. 48

(Defs. Notice of Appearance and Agreement to Attend Mediation). Three days after the

mediation, Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss. 

 The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Pelican Bay State Prison are barred by

the Eleventh Amendment, including the state law claims set forth in the amended

complaint. Accordingly, all claims against Defendants CDCR and PBSP are dismissed

without further leave to amend.

B. Motion for Medical Examination

Plaintiff has filed a motion and request for an order for a medical examination,

specifically an orthopedic examination of his right knee. Plaintiff alleges that his knee

was dislocated and internally damaged based on the officers’ . . . “excessive and

unnecessary” force and that the officers knew that Plaintiff had an existing knee injury. 

Plaintiff maintains that a further medical examination would substantiate his claim when

considered in comparison with earlier exams showing his condition after the initial knee

Case 5:04-cv-03861-JF Document 65 Filed 03/27/07 Page 4 of 8
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

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Motion for Medical Examination Without Prejudice; 

Further Scheduling Order

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Roberts861mtdmisc 5

injury in June 2003. See Pl.’s Mot. at 1-2. The Court concludes that until it is determined

whether the results of an examination might be relevant to the liability of one or more

Defendants, an orthopedic examination would be premature. After the remaining

Defendants have filed a further dispositive motion, Plaintiff may renew his request if an

examination is relevant to the issues presented in the motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

motion for order for medical examination (docket no. 57) is DENIED without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION

1. The motion to dismiss of Defendants California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) (docket no. 53) is

GRANTED, without leave to amend. All claims against Defendants CDCR and PBSP

are dismissed with prejudice.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an order for medical examination (docket no. 57) is 

DENIED without prejudice. 

 3. In order to move this case toward resolution, the Court sets the following 

briefing schedule for further dispositive motions: 

 a. Within forty-five days of the date this order is filed, Defendants shall file and

serve a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If Defendants

are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they

shall inform the Court prior to the date the motion is due. 

 b. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive

motion, and shall serve a copy on Defendants’ counsel, within thirty days of his

receipt of Defendants’ motion. 

Ninth Circuit law requires that the following notice be given:

The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment

by which they seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for

summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure will, if granted, end your case. 

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose

a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary

judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of

material fact--that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact

Case 5:04-cv-03861-JF Document 65 Filed 03/27/07 Page 5 of 8
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

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Motion for Medical Examination Without Prejudice; 

Further Scheduling Order

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Roberts861mtdmisc 6

that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked

for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing

makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly

supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you

cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you

must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as

provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the

defendant's declarations and documents and show that there is

a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit

your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if

appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary

judgment is granted in favor of defendants, your case will be

dismissed and there will be no trial.

See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986) (holding

party opposing summary judgment must come forward with evidence showing triable

issues of material fact on every essential element of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that

failure to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment may be deemed

to be a consent by Plaintiff to the granting of the motion, and to judgment against Plaintiff

without a trial. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam);

Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994). 

 c. Defendants shall file and serve a reply brief, within fifteen days of receipt of

Plaintiff’s opposition. 

 d. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. 

No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 

4. All communications by the Plaintiff with the Court must be served on

Defendants, or Defendants’ counsel, by mailing a true copy of the document to

Defendants or Defendants’ counsel.

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 5:04-cv-03861-JF Document 65 Filed 03/27/07 Page 6 of 8
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

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Motion for Medical Examination Without Prejudice; 

Further Scheduling Order

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Roberts861mtdmisc 7

5. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Court and the parties informed of any change of address and must comply with the

Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this

action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

3/27/07

Case 5:04-cv-03861-JF Document 65 Filed 03/27/07 Page 7 of 8
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

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Denying Motion for Medical Examination Without Prejudice; 

Further Scheduling Order

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Roberts861mtdmisc 8

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Michael L. Roberts

P-44841

Pelican Bay State Prison

P.O. Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95532

Jennifer J. Nygaard

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 

Case 5:04-cv-03861-JF Document 65 Filed 03/27/07 Page 8 of 8