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)
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?