Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00106/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00106-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CANDI A. EBY, )

) CIV. S-05-106 GEB DAD

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH )

AUTHORITY; JERRY HARPER, EEO )

Director, YSUS ALI, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

)

Defendant California Department of Youth Authority (“CYA”)

moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, arguing

Plaintiff’s state statutory and common law claims should be dismissed

under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and CYA challenges the viability and/or

sufficiency of Plaintiff’s federal claims. In Plaintiff’s opposition

to the motion, Plaintiff requests leave to file a Second Amended

Complaint. 

CYA is an agency of the State of California for purposes of

the Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.

Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (holding that state agencies are

“states” for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment). Since CYA has

Case 2:05-cv-00106-GEB-DAD Document 24 Filed 05/11/05 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

asserted its Eleventh Amendment immunity against the state claims, the

state claims against CYA are dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. See

Freeman v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 179 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 1999)

(holding that the Eleventh Amendment applies to state claims brought

in federal court against a state agency).

Since Plaintiff’s request for leave to file and serve a

Second Amended Complaint has not been opposed, that request will be

granted in part. Therefore, Plaintiff has 15 days from the date on

which this Order is filed to file a Second Amended Complaint. 

However, Plaintiff does not have leave to again allege state claims

against the CYA. Therefore, the portion of CYA’s motion which

challenges Plaintiff’s federal claims is moot since Plaintiff has been

granted leave to file an amended complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00106-GEB-DAD Document 24 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 2