Guerrero v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al

Filing 47

REQUEST RE UPCOMING HEARING. Signed by Judge Alsup on 4/29/2014. (whalc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
VICTOR GUERRERO,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION;
STATE PERSONNEL BOARD; and in
their official capacities JEFFREY BEARD,
Secretary of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation; SUZANNE
AMBROSE, Executive Officer of State
Personnel Board; K. CARROLL,
Lieutenant; D. SHARP, Sergeant;
BARBARA LEASHORE, Hearing Officer;
C. Hester, Lieutenant, V. MAYOL,
Lieutenant; S. COX, Lieutenant; V.
MYERS, Sergeant,

20

REQUEST RE
UPCOMING HEARING

Defendants.
/

21
22

No. C 13-05671 WHA

Both sides are hereby requested to be prepared to discuss the following issues at the May

23

1 motion hearing:

24

1.

Whether plaintiff’s state-law claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

25

Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984); accord

26

Rohnert Park Citizens to Enforce CEQA v. Cal. DOT, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

27

41004, at *5–6 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2008) (Judge Thelton Henderson). If

28

defendants CDCR and/or SPB wish to affirmatively waive Eleventh Amendment
immunity, counsel for CDCR and/or SPB are requested to submit a sworn

1

declaration stating so by 5 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30. Katz v. Regents of

2

the Univ. of Cal., 229 F.3d 831, 834 (9th Cir. 2000).

3

2.

Whether Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949, 974 (9th Cir. 2009), rev'd on other

4

grounds sub nom. Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011), allows plaintiff to

5

give defendants only “fair notice” of his Title VII claim, rather than require him

6

to plead with factual particularity.

7

3.

Whether plaintiff’s substantive due process claim is subsumed by his equal

8

protection claim under Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994). See, e.g.,

9

Wilkins v. County of Alameda, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91645, at 11–12 (N.D. Cal.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

June 28, 2012) (Judge Lucy Koh).
4.

Whether plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim is barred by the statute of limitations.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: April 29, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2