McLaurin v. Winchester ( 2021 )

1 KELLIE M. MURPHY, ESQ.(SBN 189500) KRISTEN M. CAPRINO, ESQ. (SBN 306815) 2 JOHNSON SCHACHTER & LEWIS A Professional Law Corporation 3 Harvard Square 2180 Harvard Street, Suite 560 4 Sacramento, CA 95815 Telephone: (916) 921-5800 5 Facsimile: (916) 921-0247 kellie@jsl-law.com / kristen@jsl-law.com 6 Attorneys for DEFENDANTS: 7 LOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT AND LOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT POLICE DEPARTMENT (erroneously sued as LOS RIOS POLICE 8 DEPARTMENT) 9 UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 DESTINY McLAURIN, ) CASE NO. 2:20-CV-02024-KJM-CKD ) 13 ) ORDER GRANTING LOS RIOS Plaintiff, ) COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT 14 ) AND LOS RIOS COMMUNITY ) COLLEGE DISTRICT POLICE 15 v. ) DEPARTMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 LOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE ) WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; DISTRICT; LOS RIOS POLICE ) JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 17 DEPARTMENT; NOAH WINCHESTER; and ) DOES 1-10, ) 18 ) Complaint Filed: October 9, 2020 ) 19 Defendants. ) Trial Date: None Set ) 20 ) 21 22 Plaintiff Destiny McLaurin brought the present action against Defendants Los Rios 23 Community College District and Los Rios Community College District Police Department 24 (erroneously sued as “Los Rios Police Department”) (together, the “District Defendants”) and 25 Noah Winchester on October 9, 2020. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on 26 December 23, 2020. 27 The District Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint came 28 on for hearing before this court on April 16, 2021. Plaintiff was represented by Dale K. Galipo 1 || of The Law Offices of Dale K. Galipo and the District Defendants were represented by Kellie M. 2 || Murphy of Johnson Schachter & Lewis, a P.L.C. 3 After considering the moving and opposing papers, arguments of counsel, and all other 4 || matters presented to the court, the court granted the motion to dismiss without leave to amend by 5 || bench order but permitted the District Defendants to propose a written order, which they have 6 || now done. 7 The court therefore orders as follows: 8 1. The claims against the Los Rios Community College District Police Department are 9 dismissed as duplicative of the claims against the Los Rios Community College 10 District because the Los Rios Community College District Police Department is part 11 of the Los Rios Community College District; 12 2. Los Rios Community College District’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended 32 13 Complaint is granted without leave to amend, but without prejudice, on the grounds : si 14 that the California community college districts are immune from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 2 : 15 suits under the Eleventh Amendment (see, e.g., Cerrato v. San Francisco Community : 16 College Dist., 26 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 1994); see also, e.g., Mitchell v. Los Angeles % 17 Community College Dist., 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1988)); and : 18 3. Judgment is entered in favor of the District Defendants and against Plaintiff Destiny 19 McLaurin. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 |} DATED: June 23, 2021. 22 23 L eae /Wurd ¢ g_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING LOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT AND LOS RIOS COMMUNITY COTT ECE DISTRICT POT ICE DEPARTMENT’?S MOTION TO DISMISS BETIRST AMENDED COMPT ATNT