Godoy et al v. Horel et al

Filing 10

ORDER re 8 MOTION to Continue Initial Status Conference; 4 Jury Demand and Request for Screening Order; 9 Stipulation. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 1/11/2010. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 JAMES GODOY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT A. HOREL, et al., Defendant. _______________________________/ Plaintiffs James Godoy, Rick Cruz, Miguel Marquez, William McIntosh, Vincente Lopez, Carlos Galindo, Scott Stephenson, and Alex Gutierrez, who are presently incarcerated by the State of California at Pelican Bay State Prison ("PBSP"), filed the above-entitled proposed class action on October 7, 2009. Plaintiffs have paid the $350 filing fee, and are represented by counsel. Plaintiffs allege that defendants Robert A. Horel, Francisco Jacquez, N. Grannis, and Matthew Cate raised the price of coffee and other food products in the PBSP canteen, and assert further that the increased prices did not reflect a price increase imposed by the food products manufacturer/distributor/supplier, but rather represented a decision by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") to use this method to replenish a loss in the Inmate Welfare Fund. Plaintiffs allege four causes of action ­ (1) a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) a claim of fraudulent, oppressive, unfair, and illegal business practices, in violation of No. C 09-4793 PJH ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

California Business & Professions Code § 17200; (3) a claim for conversion; and (4) a claim for "inverse condemnation of money," brought under Art. 1, Sec. 19, of the California Constitution. Plaintiffs seek damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief. On November 12, 2009, defendants e-filed a document that they listed on the clerk's docket as "Demand for Jury Trial." On January 6, 2010, the day before the Joint Case Management Conference Statement was due, defendants for the first time brought to the court's attention that the November 12, 2009 "Demand for Jury Trial" also included a request for a screening order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In the request for the screening order, defendants assert that the court should dismiss the § 17200 claim because a state agency is not a "person" within the meaning of California's Unfair Competition Law; because statutory immunity protects the CDCR from suit; and because the named defendants are "entitled to California Government Code immunities." Defendants also argue that the conversion claim should be dismissed because there can be no conversion where an owner either expressly or impliedly assents to or ratifies the alleged taking, use, or disposition of his property. In addition, defendants contend, money cannot be the subject of a cause of action for conversion unless there is a specific, identifiable sum involved. Finally, defendants "waive their right to reply to the complaint," but also "request that the Court allow them sixty days from the date of any screening order to file any necessary responsive pleading." The general rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is that "[t]he court shall review . . . a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity" and "shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint" if it is "frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Here, however, because plaintiffs are represented by counsel, because the 2

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

complaint was filed as a purported class action, and because defendants' request for a screening order more closely resembles a motion to dismiss, the court finds it preferable for plaintiffs to respond to defendants' arguments with regard to the § 17200 claim and the conversion claim," and the argument with regard to the "California Government Code immunities." Plaintiffs shall file a response no later than February 3, 2010. Alternatively, if defendants wish to file a regularly-noticed motion to dismiss, they may do so no later than January 27, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 11, 2010 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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