Bowden v. State of California ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 EDWARD BOWDEN, No. 2:18-cv-02062 WBS AC 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 ----oo0oo---- 19 Plaintiff Edward Bowden brought this civil rights 20 action against, inter alia, the California Department of 21 Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) for failing to provide 22 him with adequate medical care pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 23 state law. (Docket No. 1.) CDCR now moves for judgment on the 24 pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). (Docket 25 No. 28.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition to CDCR’s motion. 26 The standard for assessing a Rule 12(c) motion for 27 judgment on the pleadings is “substantially identical to [the] 28 analysis under Rule 12(b)(6).” Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012); see also U.S. ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. 2 Dynamics C4 Sys., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Rule 3 12(c) is ‘functionally identical’ to Rule 12(b)(6) and [] ‘the 4 same standard of review’ applies to motions brought under either 5 rule.”). In sum, a “judgment on the pleadings is properly 6 granted when, taking all the allegations in the non-moving 7 party's pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to 8 judgment as a matter of law.” Fajardo v. Cty. of L.A., 179 F.3d 9 698, 699 (9th Cir. 1999). 10 The Eleventh Amendment bars any suit against a state or 11 state agency absent a valid waiver or abrogation of its sovereign 12 immunity. Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996). 13 The CDCR is one such state agency that is immune from liability 14 under the Eleventh Amendment. See, e.g., Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of 15 Corrs., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The district court 16 correctly held that the California Department of Corrections and 17 the California Board of Prison Terms were entitled to Eleventh 18 Amendment immunity.”); Fulcher v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs., 297 Fed. 19 App’x 645, 646 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he California Department of 20 Corrections ... is a state agency that is immune from liability 21 under the Eleventh Amendment.”). CDCR has not waived its 22 Eleventh Amendment immunity in this case, (see CDCR Answer at 5 ¶ 23 8 (Docket No. 15)), and California “has not waived its Eleventh 24 Amendment immunity with respect to claims brought under § 1983 in 25 federal court.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 26 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the court will grant CDCR’s motion 27 for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiff’s federal claims. 28 Plaintiff also brings state law claims against CDCR for 4.10 UV MVVULTICEI VU PHU VM Lec rayet vviiv 1 violation of California Welfare and Institutions Code § 15657 and 2 intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Compl. FTI 91-94, 3 107-09 (Docket No. 1-1).) However, under the California law a 4 public entity is not liable for any injury to a prisoner. See 5 Cal. Gov. Code § 844.6(a) (2). “Injury” is broadly construed to 6 cover both physical and emotional damage. Cal. Gov. Code § 7 810.8. Consequently, CDCR as an entity cannot be held liable for 8 | plaintiff’s injuries. Furthermore, CDCR’s immunity as a state 9 agency under the Eleventh Amendment extends to immunize them from 10 liability under plaintiff’s state law claims. See Pennhurst 11 State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 121 (1984); see 12 also Ashker v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs., 112 F.3d 392, 394 (9th Cir. 13 1997) (noting a suit against CDCR arising under state law would 14 be barred by the Eleventh Amendment). Accordingly, the court 15 | will also grant CDCR’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to 16 | plaintiff’s state law claims. 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the California Department 18 of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s motion for judgment on the 19 | pleadings be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Because the 20 deficiencies in plaintiff’s complaint can be cured, no further 21 leave to amend will be permitted.! 22 | Dated: June 9, 2020 he theo tZ...b~E—~ 23 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 1 Although Rule 12(c) does not mention leave to amend, courts have the discretion to grant a Rule 12(c) motion with 25 leave to amend. See, e.g., Woodson v. California, No. 2:15-cv- 01206 MCE CKD, 2017 WL 2654821, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2017). 26 However, “a district court may dismiss without leave where a plaintiff’s proposed amendments would fail to cure the pleading 27 deficiencies and amendment would be futile.” See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1031 (9th Cir. 28 | 2011).