Garbarini v. Ulit et al

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY FOR MONETARY DAMAGES re 14 , 31 signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/25/2015. (Filing Deadline: 7/20/2015).(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RALPH GARBARINI,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
WAYNE ULIT, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01058-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF DISMISSAL OF THE
CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS IN THEIR
OFFICIAL CAPACITY FOR MONETARY
DAMAGES
[ECF Nos. 14, 31]

Plaintiff Ralph Garbarini is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

On May 7, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was

21

served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that objections to the Findings and

22

Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections on May 20, 2015,1 and

23

Defendants filed a response on June 2, 2015. Local Rule 304(b), (d).

24

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de

25

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and

26

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

27
1

28

Plaintiff subsequently filed a verbatim copy of the objections on June 1, 2015. (ECF No. 33.)

1

As stated in the Findings and Recommendations, the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiff’s

1
2

claims for damages against the named Defendants in their official capacities. See Doe v. Lawrence

3

Livermore Nat’l Lab., 131 F.3d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 1997); Eaglesmith v. Ward, 73 F.3d 857, 859 (9th

4

Cir. 1996). State officers acting in their official capacities receive the same immunity as the

5

government agency that employs them. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991). Thus, a state prison

6

officials sued for damages in his or her official capacity is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

7

As correctly stated in the Findings and Recommendations, Defendants Ulit, Smith, Moon and Wang

8

are immune from suit for monetary damages in their official capacities under the Eleventh

9

Amendment and their motion to dismiss such claim is granted.

10

However, as Plaintiff points out in his objections, Plaintiff’s also seeks liability against

11

Defendants Ulit, Smith, Moon and Wang in their official capacity for injunctive relief. See Complaint

12

at pgs. 2-3, 21.2 The Eleventh Amendment does not provide immunity for claims seeking prospective

13

relief to remedy constitutional violations against state employees in their official capacities. See

14

Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 1378, 1384 (2015); Will v.

15

Michigan Dept of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 89-90 (1989); Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 825 (9th

16

Cir. 2007). Plaintiff’s claim for prospective relief against the Defendants in their official capacities

17

will not be dismissed from the action.

18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on May 7, 2015, is adopted in part as
follows:

20

a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief is

21

DENIED;

22
23

b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity is DENIED;

24

c. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Ulit, Smith, Moon

25

and Wang in their official capacity for monetary damages is GRANTED and those

26
2

27
28

Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, his filings are to be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Plaintiff prayer for injunctive relief
supports the construction of the claim against Defendants Ulit, Smith, Moon and Wang at least in part as an official
capacity claim.

2

1

portions of Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED; the action may proceed against these

2

Defendants in their official capacity for injunctive relief; and

3
4

2.

Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Defendants shall file
a response to Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment filed March 30, 2015.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: June 25, 2015

8

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3