Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02295/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02295-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHOLAS PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER B. EASON,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-cv-2295 CSK P

AMENDED SCREENING ORDER AND 

ORDER TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING

AFTER STAY OF THIS ACTION IS LIFTED

Plaintiff appears pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 13, 2024, this action was stayed pending referral of this case to 

the Post-Screening ADR Project. (ECF No. 15.) On December 6, 2024, defendant B. Eason filed 

an answer and noted that plaintiff also included a supplemental state law claim, which was not 

addressed in the initial screening order. (ECF No. 16 at 1.) 

Plaintiff appended to his federal civil rights complaint a separate California form 

complaint directed to the San Joaquin County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1 at 5-9.) In this 

separate complaint, plaintiff alleges a motor vehicle personal injury cause of action against 

defendant Officer B. Eason, but also names the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) as a defendant. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he complied with applicable 

claims statutes and appended a copy of the April 18, 2024 rejection of his claim presented to the 

California Department of General Services Government Claims Program. (Id. at 6, 11.)

Case 2:24-cv-02295-DJC-CSK Document 17 Filed 12/12/24 Page 1 of 3
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

Under California law, in order to state a tort claim against a public entity or public 

employee under state law, a plaintiff must allege compliance with the presentment of claims 

requirements of the California Government Claims Act. See Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 945.4, 950.2; 

Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988); Fisher v. Pickens, 

225 Cal. App. 3d 708, 718 (Ct. App. 1990). 

Liberally construing and taking both complaints together, the Court finds that as to 

defendant B. Eason, in addition to stating an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference 

to plaintiff’s safety under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff also stated a potentially cognizable personal 

injury claim under California law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The State rejected plaintiff’s claim on 

April 18, 2024, and plaintiff filed this action on August 22, 2024. Therefore, the Court finds 

sufficient allegations that plaintiff timely filed the complaint within six months from the State’s 

rejection of plaintiff’s claim. 

However, as to plaintiff’s putative state law claim against the CDCR, such defendant must 

be dismissed. Plaintiff cannot raise 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims or state law claims against the 

CDCR in federal court because of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. See Brooks v. 

Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Co-op., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that “[t]he 

Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against an unconsenting 

state” and that “[t]he Eleventh Amendment’s jurisdictional bar covers suits naming state agencies 

and departments as defendants, and applies whether the relief sought is legal or equitable in 

nature”); see also Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989) (holding that 

states are not persons for purposes of § 1983). The Ninth Circuit has explicitly held that 

28 U.S.C. § 1367, the supplemental jurisdiction statute, “does not abrogate state sovereign 

immunity for supplemental state law claims.” Stanley v. Trustees of California State Univ., 433 

F.3d 1129, 1133-34 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the CDCR must be dismissed. 

However, because this action was stayed on November 13, 2024, defendant Eason’s 

obligation to file a responsive pleading to plaintiff’s supplemental state law claim is deferred until 

after the settlement conference has been held and the stay of this case is lifted. If the case is not 

settled, defendant Eason shall file a responsive pleading to the supplemental state law claim 

Case 2:24-cv-02295-DJC-CSK Document 17 Filed 12/12/24 Page 2 of 3
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

within thirty days from the date the stay of this case is lifted. At that time, the Court will issue 

findings and recommendations on plaintiff’s putative state law claim against the CDCR.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This case proceeds on plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) against defendant 

Correctional Officer B. Eason for violation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to 

safety, as well as plaintiff’s supplemental state law claim alleging personal injury.

2. Defendant Eason’s obligation to file a responsive pleading, if appropriate following 

the settlement conference, is deferred until thirty days after the stay of this action is 

lifted. 

Dated: December 11, 2024

/1/phil2295.amd.scr

Case 2:24-cv-02295-DJC-CSK Document 17 Filed 12/12/24 Page 3 of 3