From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Domino v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 24, 2022
1:19-cv-01790-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2022)

Opinion

1:19-cv-01790-JLT-SKO

10-24-2022

JUNE M. DOMINO, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION & REHABILITATION; KATHLEEN ADDISON, in her official capacity as Secretary of The Department of Correction & Rehabilitation; DR. STEPHANIE NEUMANN BESE PSY.D., in her official capacity as Chief of Mental Health at the Central California Women's Facility CCWF; and DOES 1-50 inclusive, Defendants.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CLAIMS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE

(Doc. 42)

June Domino, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant action on December 23, 2019. (Docs. 1-3.) On March 3, 2020, the Court screened and dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable federal claim. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on March 24, 2020. (Doc. 10.) On May 8, 2020, Plaintiff's FAC was screened and dismissed for failure to state any cognizable federal claims. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff was granted one final opportunity to amend her complaint. (Id. at 2, 13.) Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint on November 24, 2021 (Doc. 42.) Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's SAC, filed on February 28, 2022. (Doc. 56.) The parties have fully briefed the motion. (Docs. 65, 66.) Upon review of the papers, the Court finds several critical issues warranting Plaintiff's response.

Defendants first argue, and the Court previously held, that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 does not provide a cause of action against state agencies. (Doc. 11 at 9-10; Doc. 56-1 at 5-6.) Plaintiff did not address this issue in her opposition. (See Doc. 65.) Defendants also raise two arguments for the first time in their reply. First, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be dismissed because neither the State nor its officials in their official capacities are “persons” for purposes of section 1983 liability and as such, they are entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. (Doc. 66 at 3.) Defendants also contend that Plaintiff's ADEA claim is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. (Id. at 4.)

Plaintiff's SAC asserts official capacity claims against California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation; Kathleen Addison, in her official capacity as Secretary of CDCR; and Dr. Stephanie Neumann Bese Psy.D., in her official capacity as Chief of Mental Health at the Central California Women's Facility. (Doc. 42 at ¶¶ 5-7.) In its first screening order, the Court clarified that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies but not suits seeking damages against officials/employees in their individual capacities. (Doc. 8 at 4.)

Defendant's correct name is Kathleen Allison. About CDCR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/about-cdcr/secretary/ (last visited October 24, 2022).

In the interest of fairness, the Court grants Plaintiff one opportunity to explain why her claims are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiff SHALL file, no later than November 8, 2022, a response addressing the issues referenced in this order as to each Defendant separately. Plaintiff's response is not to exceed 10 pages. Failure to comply with this order will result in summary dismissal of these claims without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Domino v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 24, 2022
1:19-cv-01790-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2022)
Case details for

Domino v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab.

Case Details

Full title:JUNE M. DOMINO, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION …

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 24, 2022

Citations

1:19-cv-01790-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2022)