Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01987/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01987-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Defendant
Susan Flores
Defendant
David Gilliam
Plaintiff
Kathy Mendoza Powers
Defendant
John Pappenfus
Defendant
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 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID GILLIAM, )

) 2:07-cv-01987-GEB-JKM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF)

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; )

JOHN PAPPENFUS; SUSAN FLORES; )

KATHY MENDOZA POWERS; and DOES )

1 - 20, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendant State of California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff opposes the motion. For

the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When considering such a dismissal, all material allegations

in the complaint must be accepted as true and construed in the light

Case 2:07-cv-01987-GEB -KJM Document 16 Filed 01/11/08 Page 1 of 5
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

most favorable to the nonmovant. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236

(1974); Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th

Cir. 1996). Therefore, the nonmovant is given the benefit of every

reasonable inference that can be drawn from well-pleaded allegations

of the complaint. Retail Clerks Int’l Ass'n v. Shermahorn, 373 U.S.

746, 753 n.6 (1963). 

“A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for two

reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient

facts under a cognizable legal theory.” Robertson v. Dean Witter

Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 533-34 (9th Cir. 1984). “If a complaint

is dismissed for failure to state a claim, leave to amend should be

granted unless the court determines that allegation of other facts

consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the

deficiency.” Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., Inc.,

806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986).

ANALYSIS

I. Section 1983 Claim

CDCR seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C. §

1983, arguing that § 1983 applies only to a “person,” and states and

arms of the state, such as the CDCR, are not persons under § 1983. 

(Mot. at 3:13-25; Compl. at 2:21-25.) Plaintiff rejoins,

“[t]echnically the State of California cannot be sued, but its

employees can and have been sued and it will likely answer for their

behavior indirectly.” (Opp’n at 1:19-25.)

“‘States or governmental entities that are considered []arms

of the state[] for Eleventh Amendment purposes’ are not persons within

the meaning of § 1983.” Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d

1439, 1443 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State

Case 2:07-cv-01987-GEB -KJM Document 16 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 5
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

Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70 (1989)). The CDCR is considered an arm of the

state for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. Moreno v. California,

25 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1063 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (citing Taormina v. Cal.

Dep’t of Corr., 946 F. Supp. 829, 831 (S.D. Cal. 1996), aff’d 132 F.3d

40 (9th Cir. 1997)); see also Philips v. McGrath, 2007 WL 2781270, at

*2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2007) (noting that CDCR was previously known

as California Department of Corrections). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

§ 1983 claim against the CDCR is dismissed. 

II. Negligence/Deliberate Indifference Claim

CDCR also moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s state law

negligence/deliberate indifference claim arguing that “[a] tort cause

of action against a state government entity or its employees is barred

unless a claim was timely submitted to, and was rejected by, the

California State Board of Control” and, in addition, “CDCR provides a

four level internal administrative remedy procedure which must be

exhausted before an inmate may file suit.” (Mot. at 4:3-18.) 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not allege any facts

demonstrating that he satisfied these requirements. (Id. at 5:3-6

(citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 900.2, 910, 915(b), 945.4; Wright v. State,

122 Cal. App. 4th 659, 666-67 (2004).) Plaintiff rejoins, “[in]

addition to filing a [government] tort claim while he was an inmate,

[Plaintiff] exhausted his administrative remedies under [the federal

Prison Litigation Reform Act]. Throughout his incarceration he

submitted [the appropriate administrative] forms on a repeat basis.” 

(Opp’n at 1:26-27; 2:1-8.)

The California Tort Claims Act requires that any civil

complaint for money or damages, including negligence claims, against

the state and state agencies must first be presented to and rejected

Case 2:07-cv-01987-GEB -KJM Document 16 Filed 01/11/08 Page 3 of 5
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

by the State Board of Control. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 900.2, 900.6,

905.2, 910, 915(b), 945.4; Munoz v. State, 33 Cal. App. 4th 1767, 1776

(1995); Turner v. State, 232 Cal. App. 3d 883, 889 (1991). Compliance

with the Tort Claims Act must be affirmatively alleged in the

complaint and “failure to allege compliance or circumstances excusing

compliance with [this] claim presentation requirement [results in] a

complaint . . . fail[ing] to state facts sufficient to constitute a

cause of action.” State v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32 Cal. 4th 1234,

1245 (2004). Plaintiff has not alleged this compliance. 

Further, “[u]nder [California] law, inmates are required to

exhaust administrative remedies,” Wright, 122 Cal. App. 4th at 668,

and “[t]he exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional: a court cannot

hear a case before a litigant exhausts administrative remedies.” Id.

at 664-65. “Under a regulation promulgated by the Department [of

Corrections] a prison inmate may appeal any departmental decision,

action, condition, or policy adversely affecting the inmate’s

welfare.” Id. at 666 (citing Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a);

Cal. Penal Code § 5058). Plaintiff has not shown that he has

exhausted his administrative remedies. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

negligence/deliberate indifference claim against CDCR is dismissed.

CDCR also argues that it is immune from being exposed to

liability for Plaintiff’s negligence/deliberate indifference claim.

(Mot. at 5:7-21.) This issue is reached since it bears on whether

Plaintiff should be given leave to amend. CDCR argues that

“Plaintiff’s injury, if any, occurred while he was an inmate,” and

“[i]n California, public entities are not liable for injuries caused

or sustained by inmates.” (Mot. at 5:20-21, 5:7-15 (citing Cal. Gov’t

Code § 844.6); Compl. at 4:15-16.) Plaintiff rejoins that a public

Case 2:07-cv-01987-GEB -KJM Document 16 Filed 01/11/08 Page 4 of 5
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

entity is liable where its employee “‘knows or has reason to know that

[a] prisoner is in need of immediate medical care and he fails to take

reasonable action to summon such medical care.’” (Opp’n at 3:3-7

(quoting Cal. Gov’t Code § 845.6).) Plaintiff alleges in his

Complaint, inter alia, that

plaintiff was so edemat[]ous he could barely walk

and was experiencing diarrhea about 12 times a

day, along with all the visible and dangerous

signs of malnutrition. When plaintiff returned

from Court in Yolo County in May 4, 2005, his

medical chart stated he needed a gluten free diet

and immediate medical attention. When he finally

was seen by Dr. Pappenfus 14 days later, plaintiff

was seriously ill. 

(Compl. at 5:25-27.) 

Construing these allegations in the light most favorable to

Plaintiff, reasonable inferences could be drawn that he meets the

requirements of California Government Code section 845.6. 

Accordingly, CDCR has not shown that it is immune from liability for

Plaintiff’s negligence/deliberate indifference claim. 

CONCLUSION

For the stated reasons, CDCR’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

§ 1983 claim is granted. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. 

Plaintiff’s negligence/deliberate indifference claim against CDCR is

also dismissed, with leave to amend, provided that an amended

Complaint is filed no later than ten days after the date on which this

Order is filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-01987-GEB -KJM Document 16 Filed 01/11/08 Page 5 of 5