Connes v. State of California-California Highway Patrol et al

Filing 24

ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte granting 19 Motion to Dismiss. (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DIVISION OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, OFFICER T. CLARK, OFFICER S. ADDLEMAN, Defendants. PAUL CONNES, Plaintiff, No. C-08-00663 RMW ORDER GRANTING THE STATE'S MOTION TO DISMISS [Re Docket No. 19] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION E-filed on: 2/24/2009 The state of California and California Highway Patrol move to dismiss plaintiff Paul Connes' claims against them (to the extent that they are named separately) on the grounds that California possesses sovereign immunity. In opposition, Connes "concedes that the State can not be compelled into Federal Court[.]" Opp'n at 2:21. Given this concession, the court finds that oral argument is not necessary to resolve this motion. Civil L.R. 7-1(b). The court agrees and grants the State's motion to dismiss with prejudice. The court therefore does not reach the State's alternative argument that its agency, the Highway Patrol, is not a "person" under section 1983. In opposition, Connes also "seeks leave . . . to name J.A. Farrow, as an individual, who is the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol and to add a negligent supervision claim." Opp'n at 2:22-23. Connes' request which seeks to broaden substantially the scope of discovery in this case ORDER GRANTING THE STATE'S MOTION TO DISMISS C-08-00663 RMW TSF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 needs to be raised by noticed motion and not in an opposition to a motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds. In reply, the State makes a variety of new arguments as to why Connes' fifth claim for a declaration of factual innocence is not properly brought before this court. The State's motion to dismiss raised two issues: sovereign immunity and section 1983. It did not purport to address the merits of Connes' fifth claim. As with Connes' request for leave to amend, the State's arguments regarding the fifth claim also need to be raised in a separate, noticed motion. DATED: 2/24/2009 RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge ORDER GRANTING THE STATE'S MOTION TO DISMISS C-08-00663 RMW TSF 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Notice of this document has been electronically sent to: Counsel for Plaintiff: Leslie Holmes Stephen J. Usoz lholmes@hoganlaw.com susoz@hoganlaw.com Counsel for Defendants: Jennifer C. Addams jennifer.addams@doj.ca.gov Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. Dated: 2/24/2009 TSF Chambers of Judge Whyte ORDER GRANTING THE STATE'S MOTION TO DISMISS C-08-00663 RMW TSF 3

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?