Jonathan Peterson v. California Highway Patrol, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 4, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-09599
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JONATHAN PETERSON, Case No. 25-cv-09599-AMO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS

10 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 11 Defendants. 11

12 13 This is a Section 1983 case arising from an alleged assault by police officers. Before the 14 Court is the motion to dismiss of Defendant State of California (the “State”), erroneously sued as 15 the California Highway Patrol (“CHP”). The matter is fully briefed and suitable for decision 16 without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for April 16, 2026, is VACATED. See Civil 17 L.R. 7-6, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 78(b). Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their 18 arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS 19 the State’s motion for the following reasons. 20 Plaintiff purported to serve a state court summons on the State, but such service was 21 defective and not in compliance with Title 28 U.S.C. § 1448 or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 4(b). Plaintiff concedes that such service was insufficient. See Dkt. No. 16 at 2-3. The Court 23 therefore GRANTS the State’s motion to dismiss on this ground. 24 Further, the California Highway Patrol is an improper defendant in an action brought under 25 Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 does not permit a remedy against the State. See Arizonians 26 for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 69 (1997); Will v. Michigan, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989). 27 “Because the CHP is a state agency . . . and the State of California has not consented to suit . . . 1 O'Leary vy. California Highway Patrol, 923 F.2d 862 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Mulvaney v. 2 || California Highway Patrol, No. 517CV01044CASKSX, 2018 WL 1114549, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3 26, 2018) (dismissing claims against CHP and officers in their official capacities as foreclosed as a 4 || matter of law). Here, Petterson’s claims against CHP are foreclosed as a matter of law. The Court 5 || therefore GRANTS the State’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 6 Petterson requests leave to amend “to add additional causes of action which do apply to 7 CHP, as well as to add the individual officer as a defendant.” See Dkt. No. 16 at 5. Because 8 claims against CHP and the State are foreclosed as a matter of law, leave to amend to add claims 9 || against CHP would be futile. Similarly, any amendment to add state law claims against individual 10 || officers would prove futile because Petterson has failed to timely present a government claim for 11 damages prior to initiating suit. See Baker v. State of California Highway Patrol, No. 13-CV- 12 || 00073-MEJ, 2013 WL 4427199, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2013), aff'd sub nom. Baker v. 13 California Highway Patrol, 601 Fed. App’x. 556 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Actions against state officials 14 || in their official capacities are treated as suits against the State, and are therefore generally barred 3 15 || by the Eleventh Amendment.... This principle is applicable to lawsuits against CHP employees a 16 || in their official capacities.”). Accordingly, Petterson’s request to amend to include further claims 17 || against CHP or state law claims against the individual officer is DENIED. See Foman v. Davis, Zz 18 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (identifying futility as one of the bases on which courts should refuse 19 || leave to amend). 20 The Court DISMISSES the State and CHP from the action with prejudice. Within 21 days 21 from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint reflecting the conclusions 22 || reached above. No additional parties or causes of action may be introduced absent leave of Court 23 or stipulation of remaining Defendants. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: February 4, 2026 26 □ n Madlhe-> ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 28 United States District Judge