(PC) Felix v. Clendenin ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT EMERSON FELIX, No. 1:19-cv-01784 JLT BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING 13 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS 14 CLENDENIN, et al., (Docs. 42, 67) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Scott Emerson Felix is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 The assigned magistrate judge found Plaintiff was unable to state claims against 21 California Department of State Hospitals and Department of State Hospitals-Coalinga, as such 22 claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. (Doc. 67 at 14-15.) The magistrate judge also 23 found Plaintiff’s claims were subject to the state’s two-year statute of limitations and were time- 24 barred. (Id. at 15-18.) Even if the statute of limitations did not apply, the magistrate judge found 25 Plaintiff’s “claims would fail because Plaintiff has not alleged and cannot allege that his own 26 rights were violated by the elimination of the educational programs.” (Id. at 19.) Further, the 27 1 Individuals detained pursuant to the California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are considered civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 28 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). 1 magistrate judge determined that Plaintiff could not represent the interests of other civil detainees 2 as an individual proceeding in propria persona. (Id. at 19-20.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 3 recommended the motion to dismiss be granted. (Id. at 21.) Because leave to amend would be 4 futile, the magistrate judge recommended the dismissal be without leave to amend. (Id. at 20-21.) 5 On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 6 Plaintiff maintains that the defendants are not immune to liability under the Eleventh 7 Amendment, and his claims are not subject to the statute of limitation due to equitable tolling. 8 (Doc. 77.) However, Plaintiff does not present any facts that undermine the findings of the 9 magistrate judge or demonstrate any error in the analysis. 10 As the magistrate judge determined, the California Department of State Hospitals is a state 11 agency and is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Foster v. State Dep’t of State Hosps., 12 2021 WL 5330976, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2021) (finding “the Eleventh Amendment serves as 13 a jurisdictional bar” to the plaintiff’s suit against the Department of State Hospitals, as a state 14 agency), findings adopted 2022 WL 222067 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2022). As a part of the agency, 15 the Department of State Hospitals-Coalinga is also entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. 16 See Cardenas v. Coalinga State Hosp., 2023 WL 5107191, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2023) 17 (“because Coalinga State Hospital is part of the California Department of State Hospitals, which 18 is a state agency, it is also entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit”). 19 In addition, Plaintiff does not show he is entitled to equitable tolling of his claims related 20 to termination of the educational program, as the continuing violation doctrine is not applicable to 21 his claim arising under Section 1983. See Carpinteria Valley Farms, Ltd. v. Cty. of Santa 22 Barbara, 344 F.3d 822, 829 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 23 U.S. 101, 113 (2002)); Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092, 1107 (9th Cir. 2002). Further, even if 24 the claims were timely, Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to show he was entitled to 25 participate in the educational programs and suffered a violation of his civil rights. 26 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review of the 27 action. Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court 28 concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 1 | Thus, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 27, 2023 (Doc. 67) are 3 ADOPTED in full. 4 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 42) is GRANTED. 5 3. This action is DISMISSED without leave to amend. 6 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: _ September 21, 2023 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28