Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05247/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05247-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

 As the motion was noticed for hearing on May 21, 2010, plaintiff’s opposition was

due no later than April 30, 2010. See Civil L.R. 7-3(a). 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE J. HAYS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL and 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendants. /

No. C-09-5247 MMC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS; DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; CONTINUING

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

Before the Court is defendant California Highway Patrol’s Motion to Dismiss, filed

April 8, 2010, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff

Steve J. Hays has not filed opposition.1

 Having read and considered the California

Highway Patrol’s motion, the Court rules as follows.

Although plaintiff’s complaint does not identify the constitutional or statutory authority

under which plaintiff brings the instant action, the sole federal claim pleaded by the facts

alleged therein is a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Neither a state nor a state agency,

however, is “subject to suit under § 1983 in either federal court or state court.” See Howlett

v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990); see also Will v. Michigan, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1988)

(holding lawsuits can be brought under § 1983 against “local government units,” but cannot

Case 3:09-cv-05247-MMC Document 26 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 2
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

 Although the motion states it is brought only on behalf of defendant California

Highway Patrol, the ruling herein is equally applicable to defendant State of California, and,

accordingly, the instant dismissal is of both defendants. See Silverton v. Dep't of the

Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding district court "may properly on its 

own motion dismiss an action as to defendants who have not moved to dismiss where such

defendants are in a position similar to that of moving defendants or where claims against

such defendants are integrally related").

2

be brought against states or state agencies; affirming dismissal of § 1983 suit brought

against state agency). Here, the only defendants are the State of California and the

California Highway Patrol, a state agency. Consequently, plaintiff’s complaint is subject to

dismissal for failure to state a claim.2

As defendant makes no argument suggesting an amendment to name individual

officers as defendants would be futile, the Court will afford plaintiff leave to file a First

Amended Complaint. See Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding

amendment may be denied where amendment “would be futile”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a)(2) (providing “court should freely give leave when justice so requires”). 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated,

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and plaintiff’s complaint is

hereby DISMISSED with leave to amend.

2. Any First Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than June 25, 2010.

3. In light of the above ruling, the Case Management Conference is hereby

CONTINUED from May 14, 2010 to August 27, 2010; a Joint Case Management Statement

shall be filed no later than August 20, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05247-MMC Document 26 Filed 05/07/10 Page 2 of 2