Meniooh v. State of California et al

Filing 52

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer granting 18 State Motion to Dismiss; granting 24 Judicial Motion to Dismiss. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 RATA BEY MENIOOH, 14 ORDER GRANTING STATE AND JUDICIAL MOTIONS TO DISMISS; DIRECTING AMENDMENT AS TO COUNTY Plaintiff, 12 13 No. C16-00715 CRB v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., Defendants. 15 / 16 17 18 19 Three sets of Defendants have filed motions to dismiss this case. See generally County Mot. (dkt. 17)1; State Mot. (dkt. 18)2; Judicial Mot. (dkt. 24)3. As explained in greater detail in the State’s Motion, the Complaint is DISMISSED 20 WITH PREJUDICE as to the State defendants because: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims are 21 barred against non-person defendants; (2) the Complaint fails to allege prima facie elements 22 of a section 1983 claim; (3) the Complaint fails to identify a violation of a cognizable legal 23 interest; (4) the State defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; (5) the 24 Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to the first six cause of actions; and (6) Plaintiff lacks 25 26 1 27 2 28 The County defendants are the County of Humboldt and Michael T. Downey. The State defendants are the State of California, California State Transportation Agency, Department of Motor Vehicles, Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., and Attorney General Kamala D. Harris. 3 The judicial defendants are Judge John T. Feeney, Judge Marilyn B. Miles,Judge Timothy P. Cissna, California Judicial Council, and the Superior Court for the County of Humboldt. 1 Article III standing. See generally State Mot. As explained in greater detail in the judicial defendants’ Motion, the Complaint is 2 3 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the judicial defendants because: (1) the Complaint 4 fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (2) absolute judicial immunity applies; 5 (3) Eleventh Amendment immunity applies; (4) the Rooker–Feldman doctrine applies to the 6 first six cause of actions; and (5) Plaintiff lacks Article III standing. See generally Judicial 7 Mot. 8 9 The Court also holds that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to the County defendants. However, the Court has not yet determined whether United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 dismissal should be with or without prejudice. See Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 11 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that courts may deny leave to amend where 12 amendment would be futile). Accordingly, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file an amended 13 complaint as to the County defendants only within sixty (60) days of this Order.4 Upon 14 review of that amended complaint, the Court will issue a further order on Plaintiff’s claims 15 against the County defendants. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: June 24, 2016 CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Failure to timely amend could result in dismissal with prejudice. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?