(PC) Mitchell v. Diaz ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 JOHN E. MITCHELL, Case No. 1:22-cv-00006-JLT-EPG (PC) 9 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANTS’ 11 v. MOTION TO DISMISS BE GRANTED 12 T. RODRIGUEZ, (ECF No. 38) 13 Defendant. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 14 15 16 John Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 17 action. This case is proceeding on Plaintiff’s First Amendment Free Exercise claim against 18 defendant Rodriguez based on Plaintiff’s allegations that defendant Rodriguez deprived 19 Plaintiff of his silver chain and medallion without a legitimate penological purpose. (ECF Nos. 20 24, 27, & 29). 21 On January 26, 2023, defendant Rodriguez filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 38). 22 Defendant Rodriguez moves “to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for damages in his operative 23 amended complaint against Defendant in his official capacity on the grounds that Plaintiff’s 24 official-capacity claims for damages are barred under the Eleventh Amendment.” (Id. at 2). 25 Additionally, Plaintiff does not seek prospective relief from defendant Rodriguez. (Id. at 3). 26 On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed his response. (ECF No. 43). Plaintiff agrees with 27 defendant Rodriguez’s motion as to the Eleventh Amendment arguments. (Id.). However, 28 Plaintiff “stands on his claim being violated under his individual capacity and as such he should 1 be held liable for violating his civil rights under that authority.” (Id. at 1). 2 “The Eleventh Amendment bars suits which seek either damages or injunctive relief 3 against a state, an arm of the state, its instrumentalities, or its agencies. However, under Ex 4 Parte Young, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar actions seeking only prospective 5 declaratory or injunctive relief against state officers in their official capacities.” Fireman’s 6 Fund Ins. Co. v. City of Lodi, Cal., 302 F.3d 928, 957 n. 28 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations and 7 internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits 8 seeking damages against state officials in their individual capacities. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 9 21, 30-31 (1991); Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 491 (9th Cir. 2003). 10 Given that Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, and that Plaintiff’s claim for damages 11 against defendant Rodriguez in his official capacity is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, the 12 Court will recommend that defendant Rodriguez’s motion to dismiss be granted.1 13 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 14 1. Defendant Rodriguez’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 38) be GRANTED; 15 2. Plaintiff’s official capacity claim against defendant Rodriguez for damages be 16 dismissed; and 17 3. This case proceed on Plaintiff’s First Amendment Free Exercise claim against 18 defendant Rodriguez in his individual capacity. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 20 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 21 fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may 22 file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 23 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be 24 served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. 25 \\\ 26 \\\ 27 28 1 Given this, the Court will not address defendant Rodriguez’s other argument as to why the official 1 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 2 || result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 3 || 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: _ February 7, 2023 [sl ey 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28