Opinion
No. 2:14-cv-2993 AC PS
05-06-2015
RODERICK L. MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. JERRY BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend his complaint. ECF No. 12. The court has determined that this motion may be decided without argument or further briefing, and therefore waives plaintiff's non-compliance with the requirement that motions be properly noticed for hearing. See E.D. Cal. R. ("Local Rule") 230.
In the future, if plaintiff believes he needs leave of the court to file an amended complaint, he should include the proposed amended complaint as an attachment to the motion seeking leave to amend. See Local Rule 137(c). He should not, as he did here, separately file the proposed amended complaint.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302(c)(21).
Plaintiff's original complaint names the Governor of California and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") as defendants, alleges facts showing that plaintiff is subject to "Meghan's Law," alleges that the law is unconstitutional, and requests that the court enjoin enforcement of the law. ECF No. 1 at 1, 5, 11. On February 3, 2015, this court dismissed the claims against the CDCR on the grounds that injunctive relief may not be granted directly against a state agency without a waiver of the state's sovereign immunity. ECF No. 3.
The court also granted plaintiff the alternative of serving the Governor and pursuing his claims "against only the Governor," or delaying serving the Governor and attempting to state a cognizable claim "against additional defendants, other than the CDCR itself." ECF No. 3 at 3. Plaintiff elected to serve the Governor, and has thus elected to proceed only against that defendant, who has since filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
II. MOTION TO AMEND
Plaintiff has now filed a motion to amend his complaint, and has filed a proposed amended complaint. ECF Nos. 12 & 13. The proposed amended complaint does not name the Governor as a defendant, but does name the CDCR as well as the California Department of Justice. The proposed amended complaint is defective for the same reason the original complaint was defective: it seeks injunctive relief directly against agencies of the State of California. Such relief is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the absence of a waiver of sovereign immunity by the State. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (holding that an injunctive "suit against the State and its Board of Corrections is barred by the Eleventh Amendment"). No such waiver is alleged.
The motion to amend therefore would not remedy the deficiencies of the previous complaint. To the contrary, the proposed amended complaint compounds the deficiencies of the original complaint by omitting the one defendant who could conceivably be sued, and adding another defendant who is plainly immune from suit. Accordingly, the requested amendment to the complaint would be futile, and the motion therefore will be denied.
The court of course expresses no view at this time on the merits of the Governor's assertion in his motion to dismiss that he, too, is immune from suit.
--------
Plaintiff is cautioned that the Governor, the sole remaining defendant, has filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint, and scheduled it for oral argument on June 17, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff shall file his opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition, no later than June 3, 2015.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint (ECF No. 12) is DENIED; and
2. The Clerk of the Court shall STRIKE the proposed Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13) from the docket. DATED: May 6, 2015
/s/_________
ALLISON CLAIRE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE