(PC) Phillips v. Eason

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 12, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02295
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICHOLAS PHILLIPS, No. 2:24-cv-2295 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, AMENDED SCREENING ORDER AND ORDER TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING 13 v. AFTER STAY OF THIS ACTION IS LIFTED 14 OFFICER B. EASON, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff appears pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 13, 2024, this action was stayed pending referral of this case to 19 the Post-Screening ADR Project. (ECF No. 15.) On December 6, 2024, defendant B. Eason filed 20 an answer and noted that plaintiff also included a supplemental state law claim, which was not 21 addressed in the initial screening order. (ECF No. 16 at 1.) 22 Plaintiff appended to his federal civil rights complaint a separate California form 23 complaint directed to the San Joaquin County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1 at 5-9.) In this 24 separate complaint, plaintiff alleges a motor vehicle personal injury cause of action against 25 defendant Officer B. Eason, but also names the California Department of Corrections and 26 Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) as a defendant. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he complied with applicable 27 claims statutes and appended a copy of the April 18, 2024 rejection of his claim presented to the 28 California Department of General Services Government Claims Program. (Id. at 6, 11.) 1 Under California law, in order to state a tort claim against a public entity or public 2 employee under state law, a plaintiff must allege compliance with the presentment of claims 3 requirements of the California Government Claims Act. See Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 945.4, 950.2; 4 Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988); Fisher v. Pickens, 5 225 Cal. App. 3d 708, 718 (Ct. App. 1990). 6 Liberally construing and taking both complaints together, the Court finds that as to 7 defendant B. Eason, in addition to stating an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference 8 to plaintiff’s safety under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff also stated a potentially cognizable personal 9 injury claim under California law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The State rejected plaintiff’s claim on 10 April 18, 2024, and plaintiff filed this action on August 22, 2024. Therefore, the Court finds 11 sufficient allegations that plaintiff timely filed the complaint within six months from the State’s 12 rejection of plaintiff’s claim. 13 However, as to plaintiff’s putative state law claim against the CDCR, such defendant must 14 be dismissed. Plaintiff cannot raise 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims or state law claims against the 15 CDCR in federal court because of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. See Brooks v. 16 Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Co-op., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that “[t]he 17 Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against an unconsenting 18 state” and that “[t]he Eleventh Amendment’s jurisdictional bar covers suits naming state agencies 19 and departments as defendants, and applies whether the relief sought is legal or equitable in 20 nature”); see also Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989) (holding that 21 states are not persons for purposes of § 1983). The Ninth Circuit has explicitly held that 22 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the supplemental jurisdiction statute, “does not abrogate state sovereign 23 immunity for supplemental state law claims.” Stanley v. Trustees of California State Univ., 433 24 F.3d 1129, 1133-34 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the CDCR must be dismissed. 25 However, because this action was stayed on November 13, 2024, defendant Eason’s 26 obligation to file a responsive pleading to plaintiff’s supplemental state law claim is deferred until 27 after the settlement conference has been held and the stay of this case is lifted. If the case is not 28 settled, defendant Eason shall file a responsive pleading to the supplemental state law claim 1 | within thirty days from the date the stay of this case is lifted. At that time, the Court will issue 2 || findings and recommendations on plaintiffs putative state law claim against the CDCR. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. This case proceeds on plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) against defendant 5 Correctional Officer B. Eason for violation of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment right to 6 safety, as well as plaintiff's supplemental state law claim alleging personal injury. 7 2. Defendant Eason’s obligation to file a responsive pleading, if appropriate following 8 the settlement conference, is deferred until thirty days after the stay of this action is 9 lifted. 10 11 | Dated: December 11, 2024 4 aA 1 Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 |) //phit2295.amd.ser 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28