Estate of Kenneth Dale Sumner v. State of CA
2:22-cv-01638
| E.D. Cal. | May 8, 2023Background
- Kenneth Sumner was incarcerated at CDCR’s Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran and shared a cell with Okalani Latu.
- Correctional staff responded to reports of activity in the cell and found Sumner in cardiac arrest; he was airlifted to a hospital, placed on life support, and died five days later.
- Plaintiffs (Sumner’s estate, Kerri Sumner, and Sumner’s minor child) sued CDCR, several officers, Latu, and fictitious defendants alleging civil‑rights violations in a Second Amended Complaint.
- CDCR moved to dismiss all claims against it, arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity and that a state agency is not a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Plaintiffs’ opposition did not respond to the Eleventh Amendment argument and urged reliance on Bostock to challenge § 1983 precedent.
- The court granted CDCR’s motion and dismissed all claims against CDCR with prejudice, finding Eleventh Amendment immunity and that CDCR is not a § 1983 “person.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity | Plaintiffs did not meaningfully contest; generally argued pleading sufficiency and cited Bostock | CDCR is a state agency immune from suit in federal court; no waiver or congressional abrogation | Dismissal with prejudice: Eleventh Amendment bars the suit against CDCR |
| Whether CDCR is a “person” under § 1983 | Bostock warrants reexamination and state liability under § 1983 | Supreme Court precedent: state agencies are not § 1983 “persons” | CDCR cannot be liable under § 1983; dismissal also proper on this ground |
| Leave to amend / futility | Plaintiffs sought to proceed on their claims generally | CDCR argued dismissal appropriate and that amendment would be futile | Court denied leave to amend and dismissed with prejudice as amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (pleading standard; accept factual allegations for motion to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (formulaic recitations insufficient to state a claim)
- Howlett By & Through Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) (state agencies are not “persons” under § 1983)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (Eleventh Amendment immunity principles)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (limits on suits against states; waiver/abrogation analysis)
- Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2004) ( pendent state claims against nonconsenting state defendants in federal court are barred)