Mitchell v. Brown et al

Filing 14

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 5/6/2015 DENYING plaintiff's 12 Motion to Amend 1 Complaint. Clerk shall STRIKE the proposed 13 Amended Complaint. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RODERICK L. MITCHELL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-2993 AC PS

v.

ORDER

JERRY BROWN, GOVERNOR OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend his complaint. ECF No. 12. The court has

19

determined that this motion may be decided without argument or further briefing, and therefore

20

waives plaintiff’s non-compliance with the requirement that motions be properly noticed for

21

hearing. See E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 230.1
I. BACKGROUND

22

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. This proceeding was

23
24

referred to this court by Local Rule 302(c)(21).

25

////

26

1

27
28

In the future, if plaintiff believes he needs leave of the court to file an amended complaint, he
should include the proposed amended complaint as an attachment to the motion seeking leave to
amend. See Local Rule 137(c). He should not, as he did here, separately file the proposed
amended complaint.
1

1

Plaintiff’s original complaint names the Governor of California and the California

2

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) as defendants, alleges facts showing

3

that plaintiff is subject to “Meghan’s Law,” alleges that the law is unconstitutional, and requests

4

that the court enjoin enforcement of the law. ECF No. 1 at 1, 5, 11. On February 3, 2015, this

5

court dismissed the claims against the CDCR on the grounds that injunctive relief may not be

6

granted directly against a state agency without a waiver of the state’s sovereign immunity. ECF

7

No. 3.

8

The court also granted plaintiff the alternative of serving the Governor and pursuing his

9

claims “against only the Governor,” or delaying serving the Governor and attempting to state a

10

cognizable claim “against additional defendants, other than the CDCR itself.” ECF No. 3 at 3.

11

Plaintiff elected to serve the Governor, and has thus elected to proceed only against that

12

defendant, who has since filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

13

II. MOTION TO AMEND

14

Plaintiff has now filed a motion to amend his complaint, and has filed a proposed

15

amended complaint. ECF Nos. 12 & 13. The proposed amended complaint does not name the

16

Governor as a defendant, but does name the CDCR as well as the California Department of

17

Justice. The proposed amended complaint is defective for the same reason the original complaint

18

was defective: it seeks injunctive relief directly against agencies of the State of California. Such

19

relief is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the absence of a waiver of

20

sovereign immunity by the State. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (holding that

21

an injunctive “suit against the State and its Board of Corrections is barred by the Eleventh

22

Amendment”). No such waiver is alleged.

23

The motion to amend therefore would not remedy the deficiencies of the previous

24

complaint. To the contrary, the proposed amended complaint compounds the deficiencies of the

25

original complaint by omitting the one defendant who could conceivably be sued, and adding

26

another defendant who is plainly immune from suit.2 Accordingly, the requested amendment to

27
28

2

The court of course expresses no view at this time on the merits of the Governor’s assertion in
his motion to dismiss that he, too, is immune from suit.
2

1
2

the complaint would be futile, and the motion therefore will be denied.
Plaintiff is cautioned that the Governor, the sole remaining defendant, has filed a motion

3

to dismiss the original complaint, and scheduled it for oral argument on June 17, 2015 at 10:00

4

a.m. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff shall file his opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-

5

opposition, no later than June 3, 2015.

6

III. CONCLUSION

7

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (ECF No. 12) is DENIED; and

9

2. The Clerk of the Court shall STRIKE the proposed Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13)

10

from the docket.

11

DATED: May 6, 2015

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