Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04054/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04054-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ron Glass
Defendant
Gary Loredo
Defendant
Tomique McClure
Defendant
Luu Rogers
Defendant
Darryl Wayne Schilling
Plaintiff

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL WAYNE SCHILLING,

Plaintiff,

v.

GARY LOREDO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-04054-YGR (PR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS OFFICIALCAPACITY CLAIMS FOR

MONETARY DAMAGES AS BARRED 

BY ELEVENTH AMENDMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Darryl Wayne Schilling, a state prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison

(“SQSP”), filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages for the 

alleged violation of his constitutional rights by individuals who are employees of the California 

Prison Industry Authority (“CALPIA”), operating under the auspices of the California Department 

of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendants, who work at 

SQSP’s furniture factory, were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety by knowingly 

exposing him to asbestos or rebuffing his concerns regarding asbestos exposure. Plaintiff also 

alleges that he was released from his assigned job at the furniture factory in retaliation for 

complaining about his asbestos exposure.

On January 23, 2018 the Court ordered service of the following cognizable claims: (1) an 

Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference against CALPIA Plant Manager Gary Loredo 

as well as CALPIA Supervisors Ron Glass and Luu Rogers; and (2) a retaliation claim against 

CALPIA Supervisors Glass and Tomique McClure. 

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss, in which they are arguing that 

Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against them in their official capacities are barred under 

the Eleventh Amendment. Dkt. 17. This motion is fully briefed. See Dkts. 18, 19.

Also before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which will be 

resolved in a separate written Order. See Dkt. 27.

For the reasons discussed below, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

Case 4:17-cv-04054-YGR Document 34 Filed 01/10/19 Page 1 of 3
2

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

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Failure to state a claim is grounds for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Dismissal for failure to state a claim is a ruling on a question of law. Parks 

School of Business, Inc., v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1483 (9th Cir. 1995). “The issue is not 

whether the plaintiff ultimately will prevail, but whether he is entitled to offer evidence to support 

his claim.” Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987).

B. Analysis

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against them in their 

official capacites are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Dkt. 17 at 4-5. In a document entitled, 

“Plaintiff’s Objections to Defense Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6),” Plaintiff “stipulates that [D]efendants [being] sued for monetary damages may be 

restricted by the Eleventh Amendment to liability for those damages under their individual 

capacity.” Dkt. 18 at 1. Therefore, it seems that Plaintiff has no objection to Defendants’ motion. 

However, in an abundance of caution, the Court will conduct the following analysis below. 

The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars from the federal courts 

suits against a state by its own citizens, citizens of another state, or citizens or subjects of any 

foreign state. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 237-38 (1985) abrogated on other 

grounds as noted in Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 198 (1996). Unless a state has waived its 

Eleventh Amendment immunity or Congress has overridden it, a state cannot be sued regardless of 

the relief sought. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n.14 (1985). Eleventh Amendment 

immunity extends to suits against a state agency, Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs., 554 F.3d 747, 752 

(9th Cir. 2009) (California Department of Corrections and California Board of Prison Terms 

entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity), and to suits for damages against state officials sued in 

their official capacities, Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169-70 (1985). California has not 

waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

in federal court. Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 1999). Therefore, 

because CALPIA is a state agency, its employees, who are the aforementioned Defendants, sued 

Case 4:17-cv-04054-YGR Document 34 Filed 01/10/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

in their official capacities are immune from suit for monetary damages.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against Defendants in their official 

capacities, are DISMISSED as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.1 This dismissal is with 

prejudice because amendment would be futile. As such, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is 

GRANTED. Dkt. 17.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt. 17. The Court DISMISSES 

with prejudice all of Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims for monetary damages against Defendants.

2. The Court will resolve at a later time (and in a separate written Order) Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claims. See Dkt. 27.

3. This Order terminates Docket No. 17.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

 

1 Eleventh Amendment immunity does not bar Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants sued 

in their individual capacities. See Graham, 473 U.S. at 165-66.

January 10, 2019

Case 4:17-cv-04054-YGR Document 34 Filed 01/10/19 Page 3 of 3