Peterson v. State of Cal. Dept. of Corrs. and Reh.
| Decision Date | 25 August 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 106-CV-0349 OWW DLB.,106-CV-0349 OWW DLB. |
| Citation | 451 F.Supp.2d 1092 |
| Parties | Spencer PETERSON III, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Ronald Hansen, Derral Adams, and Does 1-20, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
James C. Holland, Law Office of James C. Holland, Visalia, CA, for Plaintiff.
Richard Lee Manford, Office of The Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants.
This is an employment discrimination case filed by Spencer Peterson III ("Plaintiff'), a California Correctional Officer, against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") and two of Plaintiffs supervisors, Ronald Hansen and Derral Adams (collectively "Defendants"). On March 28, 2006, Defendants removed this case from Superior Court for the County. of Kings. (Doc. 1.)
Before the court for decision is Plaintiffs motion to remand the case to state court (Doc. 4 filed Apr. 13, 2006), and Defendants' motion to dismiss all of the claims in the case (Doc. 5.) .Defendants filed opposition to the motion to remand prior to the scheduled oral argument (Doc. 6), but Plaintiff initially failed to timely file opposition to the motion to dismiss. However, he was granted leave to late file subsequent to oral argument and did so. Plaintiff submitted an opposition to the motion to dismiss on June 1, 2006. (Doc. 10.) On June 2, 2006, Defendants filed a partial objection arguing that Plaintiffs submission was untimely and beyond scope. (Doc. 11.)1
Plaintiff is an African-American resident of Visalia, California. (See Compl. at ¶ 3.) In 1986, Plaintiff began working for CDCR at the California Medical Facility, in Vacaville, California, where he maintained an "exemplary" employment record. (Compl. at ¶ 9.) In 1997, he was transferred to a position within the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility ("SATF") in Corcoran, California. (Id. at ¶ 10.) While at Corcoran, Plaintiff was promoted to the rank of Correctional Sergeant. (Id. at ¶ 11.)
Beginning in March 2004, Plaintiff asserts that he "began to suffer racially discriminatory employment practices." (Id. at ¶ 12.) Specifically, the complaint alleges three types of discriminatory activity occurred. First, the complaint alleges that Defendant Hansen refused to "approve or sign" Plaintiff's regular performance evaluation:
[I]n November 2003, plaintiffs supervisor conducted plaintiffs regular performance evaluation, submitting plaintiffs evaluation up the chain of command to Custody Captain, defendant Ron Hansen, for his approval pursuant to established CDCR practice/procedure. Without justification or explanation, defendant Hansen refused to approve or to sign plaintiff's evaluation. Plaintiff is informed an believes that the evaluation remains unsigned and unapproved by defendant Hansen, as of the date of filing of this complaint.
(Id. at ¶ 12a.) Second, the complaint alleges that Defendant Adams refused to approve Plaintiffs request to pursue a graduate degree:
[O]n February 4, 2004, without justification or explanation, defendant Warden Derral Adams refused to sign an Endorsement form required in order for plaintiff to be admitted to a Doctoral educational program through the University of LaVerne, for which plaintiff was otherwise qualified and admitted. Plaintiff submitted this Endorsement form to defendant Warden Adams on three separate occasions; nevertheless, defendant Warden Adams remained steadfast in his refusal to sign the form. Defendant Warden Adams' refusal to sign the plaintiff's Endorsement form caused a delay in plaintiffs entry Into the Doctoral program of approximately a year, in turn resulting in monetary damages, and other damages including lost opportunity costs, to plaintiff.
(Id. at ¶ 12b.) Finally, the complaint alleges that on various occasions Plaintiff was either passed over for promotion to Lieutenant or was denied the opportunity to apply for a promotion, despite being qualified to serve as a Lieutenant.
On March 16, 2004, plaintiff interviewed for promotion to Correctional Lieutenant. Although plaintiff was rated as competitive, he was denied the promotion. On June 17, 2004, plaintiff again interviewed for promotion to Correctional Lieutenant. Again plaintiff rated well; again he was denied the promotion.
On December 6, 2004, plaintiff again interviewed for promotion to Correctional Lieutenant. Defendant Hansen sat as head of the promotions panel for this promotional opportunity. Although all interviews, including those earlier interview(s) in which plaintiff had rated competitive, and although plaintiff performed better than he had in the prior, March 16, 2004 interviews, Defendant Hansen's panel inaccurately rated plaintiff as noncompetitive; thereafter and thereupon, candidates other than plaintiff, who were not African—American, and who were in truth less qualified for the position than was plaintiff, were promoted instead of plaintiff.
On April 14, 2005, CSATF conducted interviews for. Correctional Lieutenant. Defendants CDCR, plaintiff believes, defendants Adams and/or Hansen participated in causing plaintiff to not be notified that these Lieutenant's position interviews were occurring, and thereby caused plaintiff to be improperly excluded from, participating in these interviews, although plaintiff had properly applied for the position and had properly requested as part of that application process, to be included among the interviews.
On April 28, 2005, Plaintiff filed a race discrimination complaint with CDCR's Office of Civil Rights, complaining that he was not "given equal consideration for promotional advancement," that the Custody Captain refused to sign his employee performance evaluation, and that the Warden refused to allow him to enroll in the Doctoral program. 2
Plaintiff filed an essentially identical set of claims before the State Personnel Board ("SPB") on May 25, 2005. (See Doc. 5-3, VI III, IV & XI and Ex. C & D.) On August 30, 2005, a SPB administrative law judge ("ALP) conducted a full adversary evidentiary hearing on all of Plaintiff's discrimination claims. Defendants Adams and Hansen testified under oath at that hearing. (Id. at `I V.) On September 23, 2005, the ALJ wrote a proposed decision, ruling that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie claim of race discrimination and granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Id. at ¶ VI.) The SPB adopted the ALJ's proposed decision as its own on October 3, 2005. (Id. at ¶ VII.) Plaintiff filed a request for rehearing on November 4, 2005, but this request was denied by written notice on January 27, 2006. Under California Government Code section 11519(a) the SPB's decision became final on February 26, 2006. (Id. at ¶ X.) Plaintiff had thirty days to seek judicial review. Cal. Gov.Code § 11523.
The proper procedure for challenging removal is a motion to remand. Remand may be ordered either for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for any defect in the removal procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Section 1447(c), provides in pertinent part:
A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal....
Federal courts construe removal statutes strictly in order to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09, 61 S.Ct. 868, 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941); Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992). Removal is generally proper when the district courts have original jurisdiction over the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441; Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir.1996). Jurisdiction must be determined from the face of the complaint, Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987), and it must be clear from the face of the complaint under the well-pleaded complaint rule that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n. v. Graham, 489 U.S. 838, 840-41, 109 S.Ct. 1519, 103 L.Ed.2d 924 (1989) (per curiam). Defendant, as the party who invokes removal jurisdiction, has the burden of demonstrating the existence of federal jurisdiction. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.
In deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss, a court must "take all of the allegations of material fact stated in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Rodriguez v. Panayiotou, 314 F.3d 979, 983 (9th Cir.2002). In general, "a pro se complaint will be liberally construed and will be dismissed only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir.1992). However, "a liberal interpretation of a [pro se] complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled." Id.
Plaintiff requests that this case be remanded to state court on the ground that the Eleventh Amendment immunizes state entities from suit in federal court and that subject matter jurisdiction is therefore lacking. Plaintiffs argument is misplaced. First, a state entity may waive sovereign immunity for the purposes of a single lawsuit, and the state defendant has done so in this case. (See Doc. 6 at 5:11-13.) Second, Congres...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gregory v. Fresno Cnty.
...Miller v. Cty. of Santa Cruz, 39 F.3d 1030, 1032 (9th Cir. 1994), as amended (Dec. 27, 1994); Peterson v. State of California Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 451 F.Supp.2d 1092, 1105 (E.D. Cal. 2006). Therefore, the administrative law judge's decision is entitled to preclusive effect even though i......
-
Zochlinski v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
...(i.e., the right to make andenforce contracts, sue and be sued, give evidence, etc.)." Peterson v. State of California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1101 (E.D. Cal. 2006). The United States Supreme Court has noted that Section 1981 is not "a general proscrip......
-
Jackson v. California
...(i.e., the right to make and enforce contracts, sue and be sued, give evidence, etc.)." Peterson v. State of California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 451 F.Supp.2d 1092, 1101 (2006) (internal citations omitted). Similar to a violation of equal protection, to prevail on this claim......
-
King v. Cal. Dep't of Water Res.
...The first Utah Construction requirement—that the agency acted in a judicial capacity—is thus met. See Peterson v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab. , 451 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1106 (E.D. Cal. 2006). So is the second: The agency resolved the disputed issues of fact that were properly before it. "An i......