Hickman v. CDCR

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends dismissing Kevin Duane Hickman’s amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The court concludes that the Eighth Amendment claims seeking damages and injunctive relief are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, declines supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claim, and recommends dismissal without further leave to amend.

Holdings

1. The Eighth Amendment claims against CDCR, a state agency, are barred by the Eleventh Amendment because Hickman seeks damages and injunctive relief and California has not waived its immunity from § 1983 suits in federal court.
2. The court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hickman's negligence claim after dismissal of the federal claims at the early stage of the action.
3. Further leave to amend should be denied because Hickman could not cure the defect in his Eighth Amendment claims against CDCR, and he disregarded the prior instruction to name the individual officials allegedly responsible.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hickman's Eighth Amendment claims for damages and injunctive relief against CDCR are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
2. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hickman's state-law negligence claim after dismissal of the federal claims.
3. Whether Hickman should receive further leave to amend his Eighth Amendment claims against CDCR.

Disposition

other