Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04267/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04267-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Dunn
Plaintiff
State of California
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL DUNN,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-4267 EMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Docket No. 10)

Plaintiff Michael Dunn has filed a complaint against Defendant the State of California, in

which he appears to ask that the Court issue a declaratory judgment that he is not required to register

as a drug offender pursuant to California Health & Safety Code § 11590 et seq. The State has filed a

motion to dismiss, arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, that the State is immune

from suit, and that the complaint fails to state a claim for relief. Having considered the parties’

briefs and accompanying submissions, as well as the oral argument of counsel, the Court hereby

GRANTS the motion to dismiss.

I. DISCUSSION

One of the State’s main arguments in support of its motion to dismiss is that it is immune

from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. According to the Eleventh Amendment, “[t]he judicial

power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced

or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state.” U.S. Const., amend. XI. 

“Although the Eleventh Amendment does not expressly bar suits against a state by its own citizens,

it has been interpreted to do so.” Sedaghatpour v. California, No. C 07-01802 WHA, 2007 U.S.

Case 3:07-cv-04267-EMC Document 19 Filed 12/14/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Dist. LEXIS 77322, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2007); see also Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v.

Halderman, 465 U.S 89, 100 (1984) (“‘[A]n unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in

federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another state.’”). Accordingly, here, the

State has immunity from Mr. Dunn’s declaratory relief action.

Mr. Dunn’s reliance on Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974), is unavailing. In that

case, the Supreme Court did not address the issue of Eleventh Amendment immunity because the

defendant sued was not a state or an arm of the state but rather an individual sued in his official

capacity. See id. at 398 (“This case concerns the constitutionality of certain regulations promulgated

by appellant Procunier in his capacity as Director of the California Department of Corrections.”); see

also Pittman v. Oregon, No. 05-35900, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 28028, at *14-15 (9th Cir. Dec. 5,

2007) (“Sovereign immunity also does not bar suits for prospective injunctive relief against

individual state officials acting in their official capacity.”). In the instant case, Mr. Dunn has sued

only the State of California. 

Even if Eleventh Amendment immunity were not a bar to Mr. Dunn’s lawsuit, the case

would be dismissed both for failure to state a claim and lack of standing. Mr. Dunn has not alleged

any injury to himself caused by the State, nor has he provided the Court with any evidence that he

has suffered an injury as a result of the State’s actions. He makes reference to an arbitrary stop that

was allegedly committed by a sheriff, not an employee or official of the State. Mr. Dunn argues that

he has suffered and continues to suffer injury caused by the State because registration under the state

statutory scheme embodied in § 11590 et seq. makes him subject to a stop and search without

probable cause. But this argument is unavailing as the language of the relevant statutes do not give

any person or entity the authority to conduct a stop and search without probable cause. Indeed, the

statutes make no mention of stops and searches at all. 

Moreover, the Court gave Mr. Dunn an opportunity, after the hearing on the motion to

dismiss, to submit information showing that the state statute allows for stops and searches without

probable cause, but he provided no such information. Indeed, he submitted no information to the

Court at all. Apparently, Mr. Dunn did give to the State a document titled “Notice of Narcotic

Case 3:07-cv-04267-EMC Document 19 Filed 12/14/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Offender Registration Requirement -- 11590 H&S,” see Docket No. 18, Ex. A, but this document

says nothing about stops and searches pursuant to § 11590 et seq.

The Court notes, for Mr. Dunn’s benefit, that its ruling here does not mean that he is

necessarily without any remedy for the alleged wrong related to the registration requirements of §

11590 et seq. If, for example, the local sheriff’s department was stopping and searching him without

probable cause, and citing § 11590 et seq. as the legal authority for its actions, then Mr. Dunn may 

have legal recourse against that department. The Court’s ruling here is simply that the State of

California is not a proper defendant both on the merits and based on immunity.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the State’s motion to dismiss. The dismissal is

without prejudice. Mr. Dunn shall have thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint or his case

will be dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk of the Court shall close the file in this case.

This order disposes of Docket No. 10.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04267-EMC Document 19 Filed 12/14/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL DUNN,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-4267 EMC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.

Michael Dunn

P.O. Box 1468

Laytonville, CA 95454

ALL OTHER COUNSEL SERVED VIA

ELECTRONIC FILING

Dated: December 14, 2007 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By: /s/ 

Leni Doyle

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-04267-EMC Document 19 Filed 12/14/07 Page 4 of 4