govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00362-0

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 This is a civil rights action brought by Plaintiff Earnest Maea for injuries he received while 
incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison.  The operative complaint is the First Amended 
Complaint (“FAC”).  The FAC alleges claims under California state law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  
Currently before the Court is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss filed by Defendants California 
Department of Corrections (“CDCR”) and Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”).  Maea, through 
counsel, has filed a notice of non-opposition.   
 Defendants’ Arguments 
 With respect to CDCR, Defendants argue that CDCR is a state agency and thus, entitled to 
Eleventh Amendment immunity.  CDCR argues that the immunity applies to Maea’s state and 
federal claims.  With respect to KVSP, Defendants argue that KVSP is merely a physical building 
and is incapable of being sued.  Therefore, Defendants contend that all claims against CDCR and 
KVSP should be dismissed. 
 Plaintiff’s Non-Opposition 
 Maea states that he “does not oppose granting the motion to dismiss all claims against 
[CDCR and KVSP].”  Doc. No. 23.  Maea explains that he has a parallel state case against CDCR 
and KVSP pending in the Kern County Superior Court.  Although the parties attempted to obtain a 
stipulation to dismiss the claims against CDCR and KVSP in light of the parallel action, the 
EARNEST MAEA, by and through his 
power of attorney, Lashara Maea, 
 
Plaintiff 
 
v. 
 
KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al.,   
 
Defendants 
 
CASE NO. 1:22-CV-0362 AWI HBK 
 
 
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 
TO DISMISS 
 
 
(Doc. No. 16) 
 
Case 1:22-cv-00362-KES-HBK     Document 28     Filed 02/24/23     Page 1 of 2
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
2 
 
parties could not reach agreement.  “Therefore, without waiving any claim and/or right to proceed 
in the parallel state court action,” Maea does not oppose the pending motion to dismiss.  Id. 
 Discussion 
 There are no disputes between the parties.  As a state agency, CDCR is entitled to Eleventh 
Amendment immunity.  See Brown v. California Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 
2009); Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 1999).  Eleventh Amendment 
immunity applies to Maea’s pending § 1983 claims, see id., as well as his state law claims, against 
CDCR.  See Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004).  Further, in 
the absence of an opposition, the Court can only conclude that the parties agree that KVSP is not a 
legal entity, but is merely a building.  Cf. Wilson v. Pelican Bay State Prison, 2018 U.S. Dist. 
LEXIS 191626, *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2018) (dismissing Pelican Bay State Prison because it is 
“simply a building, not a government entity.”).  Therefore, given the status of the briefing, the 
Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss CDCR and KVSP from this suit.1 
 
      ORDER 
 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 
1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED; and 
2. Defendants CDCR and KVSP are DISMISSED from this case without leave to amend. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated:    February 24, 2023       
               SENIOR  DISTRICT  JUDGE 
 
 
1 The Court does not intend to make any findings or holdings with respect to Maea’s parallel suit in the Kern County 
Superior Court.  The Court further does not interpret Maea’s notice of non-opposition as a waiver or concession with 
respect to his parallel state suit.  This order disposes only of the motion pending before this Court.   
Case 1:22-cv-00362-KES-HBK     Document 28     Filed 02/24/23     Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight