Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01095/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01095-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTINE M. HAGAN as

Personal Representative

and as GUARDIAN Ad LITEM

for CONNOR HAGAN, a minor,

NO. CIV. S-07-1095 LKK/DAD 

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

CALIFORNIA FORENSIC

MEDICAL GROUP, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Christina Hagan, on behalf of herself, her minor

son, Connor Hagan, and her deceased husband, Michael Hagan, has

brought this action against defendants California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), the California Forensic

Medical Group, and the County of Butte. The complaint includes an

Eighth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as various

state law claims. Pending before the court is CDCR’s motion to

dismiss, which argues that the state is immune from suit under the

Eleventh Amendment. The court resolves the motion on the parties’

Case 2:07-cv-01095-LKK-AC Document 25 Filed 02/06/08 Page 1 of 6
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

1

 The caption of the complaint states that Christina Hagan has

brought this action “as Personal Representative and as Guardian Ad

Litem for Connor Hagan.” The court will presume that Ms. Hagan has

brought this action as a personal representative for the estate of

Michael Hagan (although not expressly stated), given that the

complaint attempts to assert Michael Hagan’s Eighth Amendment

rights.

2

papers without oral argument. For the reasons explained below, the

motion is granted.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Christina Hagan and Connor Hagan are the widow and

minor son, respectively, of the decedent in this action, Michael

Hagan.1 FAC ¶¶ 1, 2. Defendant CDCR is a governmental entity and

a subdivision of the state of California responsible for the

operation of the High Desert State Prison (HDSP) and the provision

of medical services to inmates housed at that facility. FAC ¶ 5.

Plaintiffs allege that defendant CDCR knew that Mr. Hagan, an

inmate, was an asthmatic with severe breathing problems but

intentionally deprived him of necessary medical treatment, which

resulted in his death. FAC ¶ 18. Plaintiffs have brought an

Eighth Amendment claim under section 1983 against CDCR as well as

various state law claims, including wrongful death, FAC ¶¶ 17-25,

medical malpractice, FAC ¶¶ 43-48, and intentional infliction of

emotional distress, FAC ¶¶ 64-70.

II. Standard

In order to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to

state a claim, plaintiffs must allege "enough facts to state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic

Case 2:07-cv-01095-LKK-AC Document 25 Filed 02/06/08 Page 2 of 6
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 The holding in Twombly explicitly abrogates the well

established holding in Conley v. Gibson that, "a complaint should

not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears

beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." 355 U.S.

41, 45-46 (1957); Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1968.

3

Corp. v. Twombly, -- U.S. --, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). 

While a complaint need not plead "detailed factual allegations,"

the factual allegations it does include "must be enough to raise

a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. at 1964-65. 

As the Supreme Court observed, Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a "showing" that the plaintiff is

entitled to relief, “rather than a blanket assertion” of

entitlement to relief. Id. at 1965 n.3. Though such assertions

may provide a defendant with the requisite "fair notice" of the

nature of a plaintiff's claim, only factual allegations can

clarify the "grounds" on which that claim rests. Id. "The

pleading must contain something more. . . than . . . a statement

of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally

cognizable right of action." Id. at 1965, quoting 5 C. Wright &

A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1216, pp. 235-36

(3d ed. 2004).2

On a motion to dismiss, the allegations of the complaint

must be accepted as true. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322

(1972). The court is bound to give the plaintiff the benefit of

every reasonable inference to be drawn from the "well-pleaded"

allegations of the complaint. See Retail Clerks Intern. Ass'n,

Local 1625, AFL-CIO v. Schermerhorn, 373 U.S. 746, 753 n.6

Case 2:07-cv-01095-LKK-AC Document 25 Filed 02/06/08 Page 3 of 6
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

(1963). In general, the complaint is construed favorably to the

pleader. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974),

overruled on other grounds by Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800

(1982). That said, the court does not accept as true

unreasonable inferences or conclusory legal allegations cast in

the form of factual allegations. W. Mining Council v. Watt, 643

F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).

III. Analysis

A. Section 1983 Claim

Plaintiffs’ section 1983 claim alleges that CDCR violated

Mr. Hagan’s Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual

punishment. Prison officials may be held liable under the

Eighth Amendment for their deliberate indifference to an

excessive risk to inmate health and safety. Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 

The Eleventh Amendment bars suit against a state as well as

“arms of the state” in federal court. Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S.

781 (1978); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890); Will v.

Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70 (1989). The

Eleventh Amendment does not bar suit, however, where state

sovereign immunity has been abrogated by a federal statute

passed under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment or where

immunity has been expressly waived by the state. Seminole Tribe

of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996); Florida Dep’t of Health

and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450

U.S. 147 (1981); Port. Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495

Case 2:07-cv-01095-LKK-AC Document 25 Filed 02/06/08 Page 4 of 6
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

3

 Moreover, of course, plaintiff may sue those state employees

whose tortious conduct caused harm. Plaintiff makes no such claim

in the instant case.

4

 Waiver requires “the most express language or [] such

overwhelming implications from the text as (will) leave no room for

any other reasonable construction.” Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S.

651, 673 (1974) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs

argue that the California Tort Claims Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 800,

et seq., waives immunity. While that statute waives immunity for

suit in state court, it does not waive immunity for suit in federal

court. Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 586 (9th Cir. 1978)

(“The California Tort Claims Act does not appear to contain a

waiver of immunity which extends further than the California state

courts.”).

5

U.S. 299 (1990).3 

Here, plaintiffs have brought a section 1983 claim against

CDCR, which is undisputedly an “arm of the state” for Eleventh

Amendment purposes. While section 1983 is the basis for suits

against local governments, local government officers, and state

officers, the state is not a “person” for purposes of that

statute. Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979) (noting that

section 1983 “does not explicitly and by clear language indicate

on its face an intent to sweep away the immunity of the States;

nor does it have a history which focuses directly on the

question of state liability”); Will, 491 U.S. at 64-65. 

Furthermore, California has not waived its sovereign immunity.4

Accordingly, the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiff’s section

1983 claim.

B. State Law Claims

With respect to plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims

against CDCR, they suffer the same fate. “[A] claim that state

Case 2:07-cv-01095-LKK-AC Document 25 Filed 02/06/08 Page 5 of 6
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

officials violated state law in carrying out their official

responsibilities is a claim against the State that is protected

by the Eleventh Amendment.” See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.

Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 121 (1984). Accordingly, plaintiff’s

state law claims against CDCR must also be dismissed.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons explained above, the motion to dismiss

defendant CDCR (Dock. No. 21) is GRANTED without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 6, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01095-LKK-AC Document 25 Filed 02/06/08 Page 6 of 6