# Gathrite v. Wilson

> District Court, S.D. California · March 29, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10087403

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** March 29, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10087403

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DEANGELO LAMAR GATHRITE Case No.: 3:19-cv-01852-JAH-NLS

12 Plaintiff,
REPORT AND
13 v. RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
14 HEATHER WILSON, ET AL.,
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
15 Defendants. PLEADINGS

16
[ECF No. 37]
17

18
DeAngelo Lamar Gathrite (“Plaintiff”), a California prisoner proceeding pro se,
19
filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at the Richard J. Donovan
20
Correctional Facility, Dr. Heather Wilson and Officers J. Salinas and J. Trejo
21
(collectively, “Defendants”). ECF No.1. Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for
22
Judgment on the Pleadings. ECF No. 37. Plaintiff filed an opposition, and Defendants
23
filed a reply. ECF Nos. 39, 40. For the reasons below, the Court RECOMMENDS that
24
Defendants’ motion be GRANTED.
25
I. BACKGROUND
26
Plaintiff filed his original complaint on September 26, 2019. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff
27
was granted in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff’s factual allegations
28
1 center around an incident where he claims that Defendants impermissibly confined him in
2 a shower which strongly smelled of urine and feces for over four hours without cause.
3 Defendants filed an initial motion to dismiss, which the Court granted in part and
4 denied in part. ECF Nos. 10, 14, 17. On October 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed an amended
5 complaint. ECF No. 18. This amended complaint included several claims: 1) a violation
6 of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on Cruel and Unusual Punishment due to his
7 confinement in the shower, 2) a violation of his First Amendment Freedom of
8 Association right due to the deprivation of his ability to associate with other inmates
9 during his confinement, 3) a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause
10 because he was confined without adequate process, and 4) a violation of the First
11 Amendment prohibition on Retaliation by confining him because of his complaints
12 against Defendant Wilson. ECF No. 18.
13 On December 21, 2020, Defendants filed another motion to dismiss, moving to
14 dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for freedom of association, due process violation, and
15 retaliation. ECF No. 24. On August 29, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in
16 part the second motion to dismiss. ECF No. 32. The Court dismissed with leave to
17 amend Plaintiff’s First Amendment freedom of association claim, First Amendment
18 retaliation claim against Defendants Salinas and Trejo, and Fourteenth Amendment
19 procedural due process claim. Id. at 8. The Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed with his
20 retaliation claim against Defendant Wilson. Id.
21 Subsequently, Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint. Defendants filed an
22 answer. ECF No. 36. Concurrently, Defendants filed the instant Motion for Judgment on
23 the Pleadings. ECF No. 37.
24 II. LEGAL STANDARD
25 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), “after the pleadings are closed but
26 within such time as not to delay trial,” a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.
27 Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the
28 face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved. Fed. R. Civ. P.
1 12(c); Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir.
2 1990). When deciding a 12(c) motion, “the allegations of the non-moving party must be
3 accepted as true, while the allegations of the moving party which have been denied are
4 assumed to be false.” Id. All allegations must be treated in the light most favorable to
5 the non-moving party. Deveraturda v. Globe Aviation Sec. Servs., 454 F.3d 1043, 1046
6 (9th Cir. 2006).
7 III. DISCUSSION
8 Defendants move to dismiss only the official capacity claims against them. ECF
9 No. 37. Defendants argue that such claims must be dismissed against them because
10 Plaintiff seek only monetary damages and principles of sovereign immunity bar these
11 claims. Id. at 2-3.
12 As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the pleadings are closed at this time.
13 In its order granting in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court set a deadline for
14 when Plaintiff may file an amended complaint. ECF No. 32. The Court subsequently
15 extended the deadline (ECF No. 35), but Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by
16 that deadline. Defendants then filed this motion and answered the remainder of the
17 complaint that survived the motion to dismiss. ECF No. 36. Thus, consideration of a
18 motion for judgment on the pleadings is appropriate at this time.
19 “[T]he eleventh amendment bars actions against state officers sued in their official
20 capacities for past alleged misconduct involving a complainant's federally protected
21 rights, where the nature of the relief sought is retroactive, i.e., money damages, rather
22 than prospective, e.g., an injunction.” Bair v. Krug, 853 F.2d 672, 675 (9th Cir. 1988).
23 The Eleventh Amendment does not bar actions against state officers in their personal or
24 individual capacities. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 31 (1991); Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d
25 469, 472-73 (9th Cir. 1992).
26 Here, Defendants only seek to have the Court enter judgment for Defendants on
27 Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against them. In the operative complaint in this case
28 (ECF No. 18), Plaintiff only seeks monetary damages and does not specify any injunctive
1 relief that he is seeking. ECF No. 18 at 12. Further, in Plaintiff's opposition to this
2 motion, he states again that he “claims of monetary damages in the total sum of
3 $1,418,000.00.” ECF No. 39 at 3. The law is clear that the Eleventh Amendment bars
4 || official capacity claims where damages are sought.
5 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the
6 || pleadings be GRANTED as to the claims against Defendants in their official capacities.
7 IV. CONCLUSION
8 As outlined herein, the undersigned recommends Defendants’ motion for judgment
9 the pleadings be GRANTED. This report and recommendation is submitted to the
10 || United States District Judge assigned to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
11 IT IS ORDERED that no later than April 12, 2023, any party to this action may
12 || file written objections and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned
13 ||“Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections must be filed and
15 served on all parties no later than April 26, 2023.
16 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
17 || waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst,
18 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
20 || Dated: March 29, 2023
21 Mie. Lome
02 Hon. Nita L. Stormes
33 United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10087403. Public record. Not legal advice.