Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03313/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03313-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

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

 This case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California 1

Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and was reassigned by an order entered

February 9, 2010 (Dkt. No. 5).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDRA ANDRE-GOLLIHAR,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-03313 MCE KJN PS

v. ORDER & FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN; SAN

JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFFS

DEPARTMENT; STATE OF

CALIFORNIA; CALIFORNIA STATE 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

AND REHABILITATION, 

Defendants. 

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel, filed her complaint on November

30, 2009. (Dkt. No. 1.) Presently before the court is plaintiff’s application to proceed without 1

prepayment of fees, or in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.) Also pending are plaintiff’s motions to

appoint counsel filed November 30, 2009 (Dkt. No. 3) and February 2, 2010 (Dkt. No. 4), and

plaintiff’s letter request to add plaintiffs to this action (Dkt. Nos. 3, 4). For the reasons stated

below, the undersigned grants plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, denies

Case 2:09-cv-03313-TLN-KJN Document 6 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 11
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

2

plaintiff’s requests for appointment of counsel without prejudice, denies plaintiff’s letter request

to add plaintiffs to this action, and orders that plaintiff’s complaint be served on defendants

County of San Joaquin and San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department. The undersigned also

recommends that plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with prejudice as to two defendants: the State of

California and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

I. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. (Dkt. No. 2 (Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit).) Her

application and declaration make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). (See id.) 

Accordingly, the undersigned grants plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.

The determination that a plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not

complete the required inquiry. The court is also required to screen complaints brought by parties

proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d

845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not

limited to prisoners.”); accord Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss a case filed pursuant to the in

forma pauperis statute if, at any time, it determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if

the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks

monetary relief against an immune defendant. See also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27 (“It is also

clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma

pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”).

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that defendants are liable for the death of her son,

Casey Gollihar, who, on January 21, 2008, was allegedly shot and killed by an employee of the

San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office acting “under color of law and pursuant to his employment 

////

////

Case 2:09-cv-03313-TLN-KJN Document 6 Filed 04/07/10 Page 2 of 11
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

 This summary of the relevant facts is not an exhaustive recitation of the allegations in 2

the complaint.

 The undersigned notes that although the complaint contains specific allegations against

3

Mr. Semillo, Ms. Breceno, and Mr. Carter, plaintiff has not named these individuals as

defendants in her complaint and has not sued them. 

 Although the complaint seeks damages “unlimited in dollar amount,” (Compl. at 2), the 4

Civil Cover Sheet filed with the complaint includes a demand of $2,000,000. (Dkt. No. 1-2.) 

3

and authority as a police officer.” (Compl. at 1-2.) In short, the complaint appears to allege 2

claims for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and wrongful death under state law. (Id.) 

Plaintiff further alleges that defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(“CDCR”) “wrongfully and without justification” issued a warrant for Casey Gollihar’s arrest

and notified law enforcement agencies that Casey Gollihar was a fugitive, who was “armed and

dangerous,” and that this warrant and notice “were a legal cause” of Casey Gollihar’s death. (Id.

at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that “Robert Semillo” of the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office is

responsible for Casey Gollihar’s death. (Id.) She also alleges that “Ms. Breceno and Mr. Carter”

of CDCR are also responsible. (Id.) Plaintiff has not named Mr. Semillo, Ms. Breceno, or Mr.

Carter as defendants in either their official or individual capacities. Plaintiff seeks monetary

3

damages and has not alleged that she seeks injunctive relief against any of the named

defendants.

4

The undersigned cannot conclude on the present record that plaintiff fails to state

a claim on which relief can be granted with respect to her claims of excessive force, which the

undersigned construes for the purposes of this screening order as being brought pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, and wrongful death, which the undersigned construes for the purpose of this order

as being brought under California state law. The undersigned reserves decision on these claims

until the record is sufficiently developed. Accordingly, the undersigned will order service of the

complaint on two defendants: the County of San Joaquin and the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s

Department. However, the undersigned will not order service on the State of California and

Case 2:09-cv-03313-TLN-KJN Document 6 Filed 04/07/10 Page 3 of 11
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

4

CDCR because they are, as discussed below, immune from suit and should be dismissed from the

action.

A. The State of California is Immune from Suit.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from the State of California as a defendant on

her excessive force and wrongful death claims. Because the State is immune from suit, the

undersigned will recommend that plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages against the State of

California be dismissed with prejudice. 

The Eleventh Amendment provides that “[t]he Judicial power of the United States

shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against

one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign

State.” U.S. Const., amend. XI. “[A]bsent waiver by the State or valid congressional override,

the Eleventh Amendment bars a damages action against a State in federal court.” Kentucky v.

Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985); accord Pittman v. Ore., Employment Dep’t, 509 F.3d 1065,

1071 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating that “‘an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in

federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another State’”) (quoting Edelman v.

Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63(1974)); Henry v. County of Shasta, 132 F.3d 512, 517 (9th Cir.

1997) (“The Eleventh Amendment immunizes states from private damage actions brought in

federal court.”); see also Cal. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Jackson (In re Jackson), 184 F.3d 1046, 1048

(9th Cir. 1999) (“Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity limits the jurisdiction of the federal

courts . . . .”). 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that “[t]he State of California

has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to claims brought under § 1983

in federal court, and the Supreme Court has held that § 1983 was not intended to abrogate a

State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (9th

Cir. 1999) (citations and quotation marks omitted). As a result, plaintiff’s claim of excessive

force against the State of California is barred by the State’s immunity from suit.

Case 2:09-cv-03313-TLN-KJN Document 6 Filed 04/07/10 Page 4 of 11
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

 To the extent that subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law wrongful death 5

claim is premised on the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals has held that “28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not abrogate state sovereign

immunity for supplemental state law claims.” Stanley v. Trustees of Cal. State Univ., 433 F.3d

1129, 1133-34 (9th Cii. 2006).

5

As with plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim, her wrongful death claim against the State

of California, which the undersigned construes as a tort claim brought pursuant to California

state law, is barred by the State’s immunity from suit. Although the State of California has

5

waived its sovereign immunity through the California Tort Claims Act with respect to tort

actions brought in state court, see Cal. Gov’t Code § 945, that waiver does not effectuate a

waiver of its Eleventh Amendment immunity from tort suits in federal court. BV Eng’g v. Univ.

of Cal., L.A., 858 F.2d 1394, 1396 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that the waiver of sovereign

immunity in the California Tort Claims Act does not constitute a waiver of Eleventh Amendment

immunity in federal court), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1090 (1989); see also Guzman v. Van Demark,

651 F. Supp. 1180, 1183-84 (C.D. Cal. 1987) (“It has long been recognized that a state may

waive its state sovereign immunity without relinquishing its eleventh amendment immunity.”);

accord Kirchmann v. Lake Elsinore Unified Sch. Dist., 83 Cal. App. 4th 1098, 1103, 100 Cal.

Rptr. 2d 289, 293 (Ct. App. 2000) (“Tort actions may be brought against the state or its agencies

in state court under the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.) but may not be

brought in federal court, because the consent to suit contained in the act (Gov. Code, § 945) is

not a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity.”). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), the court must dismiss a case that

“seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Because the State

of California is immune from suit, the undesigned recommends that the claims against the State

of California be dismissed with prejudice and that the State of California be dismissed from this

action. 

////

Case 2:09-cv-03313-TLN-KJN Document 6 Filed 04/07/10 Page 5 of 11
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

6

B. CDCR is Immune from Suit.

Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim of excessive force against CDCR, an agency of the

State of California, is also barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. “In the absence of a

waiver by the state or a valid congressional override, ‘[u]nder the eleventh amendment, agencies

of the state are immune from private damage actions or suits for injunctive relief brought in

federal court.’” Dittman, 191 F.3d at 1026 (quoting Mitchell v. L.A. Cmty. College Dist., 861

F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1989)); see also Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S.

89, 100 (1984) (“It is clear, of course, that in the absence of consent a suit in which the State or

one of its agencies or departments is named as the defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh

Amendment.”); accord Aholelei v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007)

(“The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal court against a state, its

agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities.”). As stated above, the State of

California has not waived its sovereign immunity as to claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in

federal court. Dittman, 191 F.3d at 1025-26. Accordingly, CDCR is entitled to immunity from

suit as to plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim for excessive force. See, e.g., Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of

Corrections, 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that California Department of

Corrections was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from Section 1983 claim). 

The result is the same with respect to plaintiff’s state law wrongful death tort

claim. See BV Eng’g, 858 F.2d at 1396; Kirchmann, 83 Cal. App. 4th at 1103, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d

at 293. 

Similar to the State of California, CDCR is immune from suit insofar as plaintiff’s

claims alleged in the complaint are concerned. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that

the claims against CDCR be dismissed with prejudice and that CDCR be dismissed from this

action. 

II. Request to Add Casey Gollihar’s Children as Plaintiffs to the Action

In a letter filed with the court on November 30, 2009, plaintiff requested that

Case 2:09-cv-03313-TLN-KJN Document 6 Filed 04/07/10 Page 6 of 11
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

 Similarly, if the individuals are not minor children, they cannot be added as plaintiffs 6

without their consent.

7

Casey Gollihar’s two sons, Anthony Joseph Gollihar and Casey Joseph Gollihar, be added as

plaintiffs to the action. (Dkt. No. 3.) In addition, plaintiff’s letter to the court, filed February 2,

2010, suggests that plaintiff may wish to add Casey Gollihar’s daughter, Catherine Belle

Gollihar, as a plaintiff in the action. (See Dkt. No. 4.) Plaintiff appears to be the grandmother of

Anthony Joseph Gollihar, Casey Joseph Gollihar, and Catherine Belle Gollihar. It is unclear

from the present record whether the children of Casey Gollihar are minors.

The court will not add these individuals to the complaint pursuant to a letter

request. To the extent that plaintiff wishes to add these individuals to the action as plaintiffs, she

must file an amended complaint that names these individuals as plaintiffs. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

15. To the extent that plaintiff is seeking leave to amend her complaint, she should be aware that

she is entitled to amend her complaint once as a matter of course as described in Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 15(a)(1).

However, plaintiff should be aware that to the extent that Anthony Joseph

Gollihar, Casey Joseph Gollihar, and Catherine Belle Gollihar are minor children, plaintiff

cannot pursue this lawsuit on their behalf without retaining a licensed attorney to represent

them. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has plainly held that “a parent or guardian cannot 6

bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer.” Johns v. County of San

Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997); accord Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1025 (9th Cir.

2004). The rationale for this rule is a protective one, and the Court of Appeals has stated that

where minors “have claims that require adjudication, they are entitled to trained legal assistance

so their rights may be fully protected.” Johns, 114 F.3d at 877 (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted). Accordingly, if Anthony Joseph Gollihar, Casey Joseph Gollihar, and Catherine

Belle Gollihar attempt to appear in this action without an attorney, or if plaintiff adds these

children to the action and attempts to represent them as a guardian ad litem without legal

Case 2:09-cv-03313-TLN-KJN Document 6 Filed 04/07/10 Page 7 of 11
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

8

counsel, the court will have no choice but to dismiss the children from the action until such time

that they can obtain legal representation. 

III. Motions to Appoint Counsel

Plaintiff has also submitted two letter requests seeking the appointment of pro

bono counsel in this case. (Dkt. Nos. 3, 4.) The undersigned construes these letter requests as

motions to appoint counsel and will deny both requests. However, such denials will be without

prejudice such that plaintiff will be permitted to file a motion to appoint counsel in the future if

she is able to make the required showing, which is described below. 

There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil action. Lassiter v.

Dept. of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (1981). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, a court

“may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel, but will do so only on

a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009),

cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1282 (2010); accord Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th

Cir.1991). “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider

‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970

(citing Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). “Neither of these considerations is

dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Id. (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

1328, 1331 (9th Cir.1986)).

At this point in the proceedings, the undersigned is unable to make a

determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of her claims. Moreover, on the

record before the court, plaintiff’s claims for excessive force and wrongful death are not complex

and plaintiff has thus far been able to articulate her claims pro se. Accordingly, the undersigned

will deny plaintiff’s requests for the appointment of counsel. However, such denials are without

prejudice, and may file a motion for the appointment of counsel in the future if she believes in

good faith that she can make the required showing of “exceptional circumstances.” 

Case 2:09-cv-03313-TLN-KJN Document 6 Filed 04/07/10 Page 8 of 11
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

9

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is granted.

2. Service of plaintiff’s complaint is appropriate for the following two

defendants: the County of San Joaquin and the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue forthwith all process pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. 

4. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff two USM-285 forms, one

summons, an endorsed copy of the complaint filed November 30, 2009 (Dkt. No. 1), this court’s

scheduling order, and the forms providing notice of the magistrate judge’s availability to exercise

jurisdiction for all purposes.

5. Plaintiff is advised that to effectuate service, the U.S. Marshal will require:

a. One completed summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant to be served; 

c. A copy of the complaint for each defendant to be served, with an

extra copy for the U.S. Marshal; and

d. A copy of this court’s scheduling order and related documents for

each defendant to be served; and

6. Plaintiff shall supply the United States Marshal, within 30 days from the

date this order is filed, all information needed by the Marshal to effectuate service of process, and

shall, within 10 days thereafter, file a statement with the court that such documents have been

submitted to the United States Marshal. 

7. The U.S. Marshal shall serve process, with copies of this court’s

scheduling order and related documents, within 90 days of receipt of the required information

from plaintiff, without prepayment of costs. The United States Marshal shall, within 10 days

thereafter, file a statement with the court that such documents have been served. If the U.S.

Case 2:09-cv-03313-TLN-KJN Document 6 Filed 04/07/10 Page 9 of 11
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

10

Marshal is unable, for any reason, to effect service of process on any defendant, the Marshal shall

promptly report that fact, and the reasons for it, to the undersigned.

8. The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order on the United States

Marshal, 501 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (tel. 916-930-2030).

9. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

10. Plaintiff’s request to add Anthony Joseph Gollihar, Casey Joseph

Gollihar, and Catherine Belle Gollihar as plaintiffs in this action (see Dkt. Nos. 3, 4) is denied,

and plaintiff is admonished that these individuals may not appear in this action without an

attorney if they are minors.

11. Plaintiff’s requests for the appointment of counsel (Dkt. Nos. 3, 4) are

denied without prejudice to refiling a motion for appointment of counsel in the future.

It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with

prejudice as to defendants the State of California and the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation and, accordingly, that the State of California and the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation be dismissed from this action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.

1991).

////

//// 

Case 2:09-cv-03313-TLN-KJN Document 6 Filed 04/07/10 Page 10 of 11
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

11

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.

DATED: April 6, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-03313-TLN-KJN Document 6 Filed 04/07/10 Page 11 of 11