Mrozek v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 12

ORDER on Defendants' 7 Motion to Dismiss, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/8/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-01308 AWI SKO
BRAD MROZEK,

8

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISMISS

9

Plaintiff
(Doc. No. 7)

10

v.

11
12

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION AND DOES 1-50,

13
14

Defendants

15

This case stems from an altercation between Plaintiff Brad Mrozek (“Mrozek”), a prisoner

16
17

at Corcoran State Prison, and three correctional officers, Officer Amaya (“Amaya”), Lieutenant

18

Espinosa (“Espinosa”), and Sergeant Castro (“Castro”). Mrozek alleges claims under § 1983 for

19

excessive force and failure to prevent excessive force. Defendants Amaya, Espinosa, and Castro

20

(“Defendants”) now move under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety against

21

them in their official capacities.1 Mrozek did not file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to

22

dismiss. For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted.

23
24

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

25

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a claim may be dismissed because of the

26

plaintiff’s “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A

27

1

28

Although the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) is also named as a defendant in
this case, CDCR did not join in this motion. Defendants state that to their knowledge, CDCR has never been served.
Mrozek has not filed a proof of service.

1

dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or on the

2

absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. See Mollett v. Netflix, Inc.,

3

795 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2015). In reviewing a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), all well-

4

pleaded allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to

5

the non-moving party. Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Servs., 706 F.3d 1017, 1019 (9th Cir. 2013). To

6

avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as

7

true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

8

(2009); Mollett, 795 F.3d at 1065.

9
10
11

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
According to the Complaint, Mrozek was incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison. On March

12

15, 2015, after Mrozek spoke with various unnamed officers regarding drug testing, Amaya

13

screamed at Mrozek and ordered Mrozek up against a wall in the prison yard. Without

14

provocation, Amaya slammed Mrozek’s head against the wall. Amaya subsequently

15

communicated obscenities towards Mrozek and held a chokehold on Mrozek while Mrozek was in

16

a holding cage. Both Espinosa and Castro witnessed Amaya choking Mrozek but failed to prevent

17

or stop Amaya. Mrozek states he has filed a 602 grievance against Defendants and claims to have

18

fully exhausted his administrative remedies.

19

On September 2, 2016, Mrozek filed his Complaint alleging that Defendants used

20

excessive force and/or failed to prevent or stop excessive force, in violation of the Eighth

21

Amendment. Mrozek is suing Defendants in both their official and individual capacities, and he

22

seeks only monetary relief.

23
24
25

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
Defendants seek dismissal from this case in their official capacities. Defendants argue that

26

Mrozek’s suit against Defendants in their official capacities is barred under the Eleventh

27

Amendment. Defendants also maintain that a state official sued in his official capacity is not a

28
2

1

“person” under the definition of § 1983.2

2

Defendants are correct that the Eleventh Amendment provides immunity to state officials

3

from official capacity suits. Krainski v. Nevada ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nevada Sys. of Higher

4

Educ., 616 F.3d 963, 967 (9th Cir. 2010); Pittman v. Oregon, Employment Dep’t, 509 F.3d 1065,

5

1071-72 (9th Cir. 2007). Additionally, Defendants are not “persons” under § 1983. Pittman, 509

6

F.3d at 1072; Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 364 (9th Cir. 2004). Therefore, Mrozek’s claims

7

against Defendants in their official capacities will be dismissed without leave to amend.3

8
9

ORDER

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No.

11

7) is GRANTED and Mrozek’s claims against Defendants Amaya, Espinosa, and Castro in their

12

official capacities are DISMISSED without leave to amend.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 8, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Defendants make arguments against injunctive relief under § 1983. However, Mrozek makes no request for
injunctive relief in his Complaint. Because injunctive relief is not at issue, the Court need not address these arguments
further.
3

This ruling has no bearing on Mrozek’s Complaint against Defendants in their individual capacities, which is not at
issue here.

3