Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-135/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH

ORDER RE: MEDICAL

DEVELOPMENT

INTERNATIONAL’S MOTION

FOR CLARIFICATION

On May 15, 2008, Medical Development International (“MDI”) filed an application

for leave to sue the Receiver in state court. In its June 24, 2008 order, the Court denied

MDI’s application, finding that the Receiver was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity

from suit based on MDI’s allegations. MDI filed a motion for clarification on July 3, 2008,

explaining that it intended to file a lawsuit in state court against the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) but not the Receiver. In its motion, MDI sought

guidance as to whether the Court intended the June 24, 2008 order to rule on the CDCR’s

immunity from suit as well as the Receiver’s. MDI noticed its motion for clarification for

hearing on August 11, 2008, but the Court finds oral argument to be unnecessary and

therefore VACATES the August 11 hearing date. The Court now clarifies its June 24 order

as discussed below.

First, the Court declines MDI’s invitation, which the CDCR also joins, to decide

whether the CDCR is immune from MDI’s intended lawsuit. MDI did not seek leave of this

Court to sue the CDCR in state court, and there is no requirement that such leave be

obtained. MDI’s application sought only leave to sue the Receiver, an issue the Court

resolved in its June 24, 2008 order. There is no pending case between MDI and the CDCR in

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1342 Filed 07/31/08 Page 1 of 4
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

1

Absent a waiver of sovereign immunity, the CDCR may not be sued in this Court. 

E.g., Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n.14 (1985) (“Unless a State has waived its

Eleventh Amendment immunity or Congress has overridden it, however, a State cannot be

sued directly in its own name regardless of the relief sought.”); Natural Res. Def. Council v.

Cal. Dep’t of Transp., 96 F.3d 420, 421 (9th Cir. 1996) (“State immunity extends to state

agencies and to state officers, who act on behalf of the state and can therefore assert the

state’s sovereign immunity.”). 

2

this Court,1

 nor any other court at this time, and MDI essentially seeks an order deciding

whether an immunity defense, if raised by the CDCR in an as yet unfiled lawsuit, would

succeed.

Such a decision would be advisory only and therefore unconstitutional. E.g., United

Pub. Workers of Am. v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 89 (1947) (“As is well known, the federal

courts established pursuant to Article III of the Constitution do not render advisory

opinions.”). As the Supreme Court has explained, a federal court may not adjudicate an

action for declaratory relief where one party “attempts to gain a litigation advantage by

obtaining an advance ruling on an affirmative defense.” Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740,

747 (1998). Here, there does not even exist an action for declaratory relief. If MDI believes

it has one or more valid causes of action against the CDCR, then it may initiate a lawsuit

against the CDCR. If the CDCR so chooses, it may then raise immunity based on the

Receivership as a defense, and the appropriate court will decide the validity of that and any

other defenses the CDCR may raise.

This Court also clarifies that, contrary to MDI’s interpretation, the Court’s June 24,

2008 order does not allow the Receiver to be sued in this Court based on the allegations in

MDI’s proposed complaint. As the Court explained:

a receiver is absolutely immune from suit for functions

“intimately connected with his receivership duties.” Id. [New

Alaska Dev. Corp. v. Guetschow, 869 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1989)]

at 1304 (finding absolute immunity based on charges of

mismanagement but not for allegations of theft or slander); see

also Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1386, 1390-91

(9th Cir. 1987) (finding absolute immunity for a bankruptcy

trustee for alleged “acts or omissions within the ambit of the

trustee’s official duties”).

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1342 Filed 07/31/08 Page 2 of 4
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

Here, as Judge Shubb correctly explained:

. . . [This Court] charged the receivership with the

“duty to control, oversee, supervise, and direct all

administrative, personnel, financial, accounting,

contractual, legal, and other operational functions

of the medical delivery component of the [CDCR].”

[Feb. 14, 2006 Order Appointing Receiver] OAR at

2 (emphasis added). [This Court] supplemented

this responsibility by explicitly providing that, in

deployment of the aforementioned duties and

directives, “the Receiver and his staff shall have the

status of officers and agents of this Court, and as

such shall be vested with the same immunities as

vest with this Court.” Id. at 6.

Because [MDI’s] lawsuit challenges [the

Receiver’s] conduct in terminating whatever

quasi-contractual relationship may have existed

when he suspected illegality on the part of [MDI],

the lawsuit challenges [the Receiver’s] conduct in

performing the very duties [this Court] set up the

receivership to perform.

MDI v. CDCR, 2008 WL 436930, at *4. Put another way: 

[MDI’s] causes of action against [the Receiver] do

not arise from tortious conduct or negligent acts

pursuant to day-to-day, routine, or ordinary

business operations unrelated to his official

responsibilities. Rather, [MDI] challenges the very

core of [the Receiver’s] authority and

administration of the CDCR medical services

system – i.e., duties explicitly prescribed in [this

Court’s] creation of the receivership.

Id. at *3 (citation omitted). This is in contrast to cases in which

“a receiver or trustee has been sued in his/her capacity as an

employer, or for torts committed by agents of the estate/business

in receivership during the course of routine or day-to-day

operations distinct from the receiver’s official responsibilities.” 

Id.

Because MDI challenges actions taken by the Receiver that go to

the core of his judicially conferred duties, the Receiver is immune

from suit based on MDI’s allegations under the Ninth Circuit

precedent cited above. Consequently, MDI has failed to state a

prima facie case against the Receiver in which there is a

reasonable probability of recovery, and the Court does not find

good cause to grant MDI leave to sue the Receiver.

June 24, 2008 Order Denying Med. Dev. Int’l’s Appl. to Sue Receiver in State Ct. at 6-7

(footnote omitted).

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1342 Filed 07/31/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Thus, after MDI and the Receiver had a full and fair opportunity to brief the immunity

issue, the Court decided the issue adversely to MDI. The Court did not deny leave to sue the

Receiver in state court based on the Court’s discretion “to maintain jurisdiction over MDI’s

claims based on the ‘the balancing of the interests of all parties involved,’” id. at 4 (citations

omitted); to the contrary, the Court explicitly found that MDI could not make out a prima

facie case because the Receiver is absolutely immune from suit based on MDI’s factual

allegations. While MDI is technically correct that the Court’s June 24, 2008 order does not

bar MDI from filing a lawsuit against the Receiver in this Court, such a lawsuit would be

futile. Although this Court resolved the immunity issue on MDI’s application for leave to

sue the Receiver in state court, the result would have been the same had the issue been

presented to the Court as part of a motion by the Receiver to dismiss a lawsuit filed by MDI.

In short, this Court clarifies its June 24, 2008 order as follows:

1. The Court did not intend to decide, and does not now decide, whether the CDCR

would be immune from MDI’s proposed lawsuit in state court.

2. The Receiver’s immunity from suit based on the allegations in MDI’s proposed

complaint extends to any complaint that might be filed in any court, including this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 07/31/08 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1342 Filed 07/31/08 Page 4 of 4