Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02061/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02061-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edgar Mac Collins
Plaintiff
State of California
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

EDGAR MAC COLLINS,

CIV. NO. S-06-2061 WBS KJM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Edgar M. Collins brought this action against

defendant State of California arising out of plaintiff’s

incarceration at the California State Prison at Corcoran (“CSPCor”), alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment and Equal

Protection rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and his rights

under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §

12101, et. seq. Defendant now moves, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the Section 1983

claim on the ground of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh

Amendment to the United States Constitution, and to dismiss the

ADA claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. 

Case 2:06-cv-02061-WBS -KJM Document 11 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 7
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

Plaintiff’s allegations against the Oroville Police 1

officers are the subject of another complaint. (Compl. ¶ 9.)

2

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff, an African-American, asserts that two

Oroville Police officers physically abused him during an arrest,

resulting in eye injury and orbital damage. (Compl. ¶ 9.) 1

Plaintiff was subsequently incarcerated in CSP-Cor. (Id. ¶¶ 9-

11.) Plaintiff contends that while at CSP-Cor he was never

provided medical treatment for his eye injuries, resulting in a

vision impairment. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 18). 

Plaintiff further asserts that on June 1, 2005, during

his incarceration at CSP-Cor, he fell while descending a stair

case and suffered an oblique fracture. (Id. ¶ 10) Plaintiff

contends that he did not receive timely medical treatment and

consequently his foot healed poorly. (Id.) Plaintiff contends

that despite the recommendations of the prison doctor, plaintiff

was given neither soft shoes nor a lower bunk, which resulted in

continuing pain, further injuries, and a permanent change to his

gait. (Id. ¶¶ 16-17.)

II. Discussion

On a motion to dismiss, the court must accept the

allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable

inferences in favor of the pleader. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.

232, 236 (1974); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972). The court

may not dismiss for failure to state a claim unless “it appears

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

of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Van Buskirk v.

CNN, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002). Dismissal is

Case 2:06-cv-02061-WBS -KJM Document 11 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 7
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

The Supreme Court has read the word “another” out of the

phrase “of another State” in the Eleventh Amendment. See Papasan

v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 276 (1986)(“This language expressly

encompasses only suits brought against a State by citizens of

another State, but this Court long ago held that the Amendment

bars suits against a State by citizens of that same State as

well. See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed.

842 (1890)”). 

3

appropriate, however, where the pleader fails to state a claim

supportable by a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Conley

v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) (complaint must “give the

defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests”).

A. Section 1983 Claim

The Eleventh Amendment precludes suits “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 2

Foreign State.” Tenn. Student Assistance Corp. v. Hood, 541 U.S.

440, 446 (2004). Eleventh Amendment immunity is not absolute and

may be waived by the state in question or by Congressional

action. Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Fla., 517 U.S. 44, 54-55

(1996). 

Plaintiff argues that California has waived its

immunity because it has consented to be sued under the California

Tort Claims Act, Cal. Gov’t. Code § 810 et. seq. (Opp’n 1-2.) 

However, California’s consent to be sued in tort, under the

California Tort Claims Act, is intended to apply only to actions

in the state courts. Riggle v. Cal., 577 F.2d 579, 586 (9th Cir.

1978). The State of California has not waived its immunity to

Case 2:06-cv-02061-WBS -KJM Document 11 Filed 01/11/07 Page 3 of 7
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

4

suits in federal courts through the passage of that act. Id. 

Further, it is well established that Congress did not abrogate

Eleventh Amendment immunity in 42 U.S.C. § 1983. McConnell v.

Critchlow, 661 F.2d 116, 117 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Under the Eleventh

Amendment, states that have not consented to suit are immune from

§ 1983 suits in federal court.”) (citing Quern v. Jordan, 440

U.S. 332, 338 (1979); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974)). 

Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate when the

complaint cannot be saved by amendment. Eminence Capital, LLC v.

Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Dismissal

with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate

unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not

be saved by amendment.”). California’s sovereign immunity cannot

be overcome with an amended complaint. Accordingly, the first

cause of action must be dismissed with prejudice. 

B. ADA Claim

The ADA does not provide a private right of action for

substandard medical care. Fitzgerald v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 403

F.3d 1134, 1144 (10th Cir. 2005) (“Several circuits have

expressly concluded that neither the ADA nor the Rehabilitation

Act provide remedies for alleged medical negligence.”) (citing

Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Even apart

from the prison setting it would be extremely odd to suppose that

disabled persons whose disability is treated negligently have a

federal malpractice claim by virtue of the Americans With

Disabilities Act, whereas a sick or injured but not disabled

person--a person suffering from an acute viral infection,

perhaps, or who has broken his leg, or who has a hernia or an

Case 2:06-cv-02061-WBS -KJM Document 11 Filed 01/11/07 Page 4 of 7
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

5

inflamed gall bladder--must be content with the remedy that the

state law of medical malpractice provides.”)); See also Grzan v.

Charter Hosp. of Nw. Ind., 104 F.3d 116, 121, 123 (7th Cir. 1997)

(affirming district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6) of plaintiff’s § 504 claim of the Rehabilitation Act

because “section 504 [which ‘is materially identical to the ADA’]

does not provide a federal malpractice tort remedy” and

allegations of discriminatory medical treatment do not fit into

the four-element framework required by Section 504). 

Here, plaintiff merely alleges substandard medical

care. He asserts that he did not receive appropriate medical

care and was not given reasonable accommodations to promote

proper healing. (Compl. ¶ 9-10, 16-18.) He does not allege (1)

that he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that he

was excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated

against with regard to a public entity’s services, programs, or

activities; or (3) that such exclusion or discrimination was by

reason of his disability. See Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039,

1052 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth the elements of an ADA

claim). Because that is not a claim upon which relief may be

granted under the ADA, plaintiff’s second cause of action must be

dismissed.

C. State Claims

Plaintiff requests the court to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over state law causes of action referenced in the

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. (Compl. ¶¶ 4-5.) 

However, plaintiff merely alludes to an action before the

California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board and

Case 2:06-cv-02061-WBS -KJM Document 11 Filed 01/11/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

does not specify the defendant(s) or the cause(s) of action. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court has discretion to dismiss

state law claims when it has dismissed all of plaintiff’s federal

claims. “In the usual case in which federal law claims are

eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . . will point

toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining

state law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S.

343, 350 n.7 (1988); Schneider v. TRW, Inc., 938 F.2d 986, 993

(9th Cir. 1991). Some circuits have held that a court may retain

jurisdiction over state law claims if extraordinary or unusual

circumstances justify their retention. See, e.g., Musson

Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Express Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1255 (6th

Cir. 1996); Wentzka v. Gellman, 991 F.2d 423, 425 (7th Cir.

1993). However, there has been no showing of extraordinary or

unusual circumstances in this case. Therefore, the court

declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over whatever

state claim or claims to which the complaint may allude. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim be, and the same

hereby is, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

(2) plaintiff’s claim under the Americans with

Disabilities Act be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE;

(3) any remaining state claims are DISMISSED, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3). 

Plaintiff is given 30 days from the date of this order

to file an amended complaint. An amended complaint should not be

filed unless counsel believes in good faith that plaintiff can

Case 2:06-cv-02061-WBS -KJM Document 11 Filed 01/11/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

state a claim upon which relief can be granted consistent with

this order.

DATED: January 11, 2007

Case 2:06-cv-02061-WBS -KJM Document 11 Filed 01/11/07 Page 7 of 7