Paul v. Redwood National And State Parks Department et al

Filing 77

ORDER RE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 56 72 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/26/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WILLIAM D. PAUL,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 17-cv-07197-SI

v.
REDWOOD NATIONAL AND STATE
PARKS DEPARTMENT, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12

Re: Dkt. Nos. 56, 72

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

ORDER RE: CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND
RECREATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant California Department of Parks and Recreation’s motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint is scheduled for a hearing on June 29, 2018. Plaintiff has filed an opposition
to the motion, and also seeks leave to file a second amended complaint. Pursuant to Civil Local
Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that these matters are suitable for resolution without oral
argument, and VACATES the hearing.
Defendant California Department of Parks and Recreation (“CDPR”) moves to dismiss the
first amended complaint (“FAC”) on three grounds: (1) “Redwood National and State Parks” is
not an entity that can be sued; (2) CDPR is immune from suit pursuant to the Eleventh
Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (3) CDPR is not a “person” amenable to suit
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff filed an opposition that largely does not address these

arguments, and also seeks leave to file a second amended complaint (“SAC”). The proposed SAC
removes “Redwood National and State Parks” as a defendant, and now names individual CDPR
employees. The proposed SAC continues to name CDPR as a defendant, but CDPR is not named
as a defendant in any of the causes of action (the individual CDPR employees are named in

1

various counts).
The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and

3

DENIES defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot. However, in the interest of judicial efficiency,

4

the Court rules that plaintiff may not name the CDPR as a defendant in the SAC because the

5

CDPR, as a state agency, is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The Eleventh

6

Amendment bars from the federal courts suits against a state by its own citizens, citizens of

7

another state or citizens or subjects of any foreign state. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473

8

U.S. 234, 237-38 (1985); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978); Edelman v. Jordan, 415

9

U.S. 651, 676-77 (1974). This Eleventh Amendment immunity also extends to suits against a state

10

agency. See, e.g., Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (California

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

Department of Corrections and California Board of Prison Terms entitled to Eleventh Amendment

12

immunity). Accordingly, plaintiff must delete paragraph 10 of the proposed SAC, as well as the

13

reference to CDPR in the caption, before filing the SAC. Plaintiff shall file the SAC no later than

14

July 2, 2018.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated: June 26, 2018

______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2