Faustino Rua v. California Correctional Health Care Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:19-cv-06115-CJC-KES Date: August 8, 2019

Title: FAUSTINO RUA v. CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES

PRESENT:

THE HONORABLE KAREN E. SCOTT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Jazmin Dorado Not Present

Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

None Present None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave

to Amend (Dkt. 1)

Pro se Plaintiff Faustino Rua (“Plaintiff”), an inmate in the custody of California, has

filed a civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant California Correctional

Health Care Services (“Defendant”), alleging that Defendant failed to adequately treat his

macular degeneration and improperly refused his requests to treat with an outside specialist.

(Dkt. 1.)

The Court must screen any “complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress

from a governmental entity, or from an officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss the complaint if it “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is

immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

The Court has reviewed the Complaint and, as explained more fully below, finds that it

fails to state a claim against the Defendant. The Complaint is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A complaint may fail to state a claim for two reasons: (1) lack of cognizable legal theory;

or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990) (as amended). In determining whether a complaint states a claim

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:19-cv-06115-CJC-KES Date: August 8, 2019

Page 2

on which relief may be granted, its allegations of material fact must be taken as true and

construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245

(9th Cir. 1989).

If the Court finds that a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, the

Court has discretion to dismiss with or without leave to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,

1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that

the defects in the complaint could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Id. at 1130-31;

see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Allegations.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant California Correctional Health Care Services (“CCHCS”)

is the “medical department” of “CDCR” (the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation). (Dkt. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated his Eighth Amendment

rights by “den[ying] [Plaintiff] assistance for his eye problems … many times through several

years,” i.e., since 2010. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff requests to treat with an “impartial eye specialist”

not employed by CDCR, “the necessary medical attention to regain my [sight],” and “monetary

compensation.” (Id. at 6.)

Plaintiff attaches a number of exhibits, including grievances and medical records,

showing that Plaintiff has been blind in his left eye since 2006 and has recently experienced pain

in his right eye. (Id. at 7-32, Dkts. 1-1, 1-2.) Plaintiff filed a healthcare grievance on January 27,

2019, requesting “an expert specialist to evaluate and map out a treatment option that will restore

his vision,” for which the prison granted intervention. (Dkt. 1 at 8.) A letter from the prison,

dated May 20, 2019, indicates that Plaintiff met with the primary care provider (who the Court

understands to be his general prison physician) in April, and his “medical condition will continue

to be monitored.” (Id. at 9.)

From the Complaint, the Court understands that by the time Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in

July 2019 he has still not been allowed to see a private eye specialist.

B. Relevant Law.

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies, as well as those where the

state itself is named as a defendant, regardless of the relief sought. See P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer

Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.

Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); see also Dittman v. State of California, 191 F.3d 1020,

1025-26 (9th Cir. 1999) (§ 1983 not intended to abrogate State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity

and State of California has not waived sovereign immunity with respect to § 1983 claims).

As an agency of the State, the CDCR is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:19-cv-06115-CJC-KES Date: August 8, 2019

Page 3

Brown v. California Dep’t of Corrections, 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009), and so is CCHCS.

See, e.g., Gomes v. Mathis, No. CV 17–7022, 2018 WL 2085237, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2018).

The Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits seeking damages against state

officials/employees in their individual capacity. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30-31 (1991).

Also, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits for prospective declaratory or injunctive relief

against state officials in their official capacity. Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 102-06.

C. Analysis.

Plaintiff names CCHCS as the sole Defendant, but that State agency is entitled to

Eleventh Amendment immunity for § 1983 claims. Therefore, the Complaint fails to state a

cognizable claim against CCHCS.

Eleventh Amendment immunity does not apply to state officials in their individual

capacity and official capacity (when seeking prospective relief). Therefore, it does not preclude

Plaintiff from naming as defendants those individuals involved in Plaintiff’s allegedly inadequate

medical care. For example, Plaintiff’s grievance alleges that his primary care physician,

Michelle Kerk, prevented Plaintiff from seeing an eye surgeon. (Dkt. 1 at 8.) Plaintiff may

amend his Complaint to name Ms. Kerk, and/or any other individual whom he alleges has been

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and allege supporting facts.

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED without

prejudice and with leave to amend.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before September 6, 2019, Plaintiff shall

(a) file a First Amended Complaint that attempts to remedy the defects described above, or

(b) re-file the Complaint.

If Plaintiff chooses to file a First Amended Complaint, then it should bear the docket

number assigned to this case (2:19-cv-06115-CJC-KES), be labeled “First Amended Complaint,”

and be complete in and of itself without reference to the original Complaint or any other

documents (except any documents that are attached to the First Amended Complaint as exhibits).

If Plaintiff chooses to simply re-file the Complaint without making material changes,

then, the Magistrate Judge may recommend that the District Judge dismiss the Complaint with

prejudice and without leave to amend.

If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this order by filing a First Amended Complaint

or notice of voluntary dismissal, this action may be dismissed for lack of diligent

prosecution.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:19-cv-06115-CJC-KES Date: August 8, 2019

Page 4

The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with a copy of Form CV-066 for filing federal

civil rights complaints.

Initials of Deputy Clerk JD