Summary
dismissing claims against six of seven individual defendants sued in their official capacities as duplicative
Summary of this case from Castle v. SotoOpinion
Case No. CV 04-08448 DDP (SHx).
January 13, 2006
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
[Motion filed on November 28, 2005]
This matter is before the Court on the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. After considering the parties' arguments, the Court grants the motion and adopts the following order.
I. Background
S.A. Thomas and E.L. Gibson bring this class action suit against Sheriff Leroy Baca ("Sheriff Baca") and six members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors ("Supervisor Defendants"). The class alleges that they were required to sleep on the floor in the Los Angeles County jail in violation of their constitutional rights.
On May 17, 2005, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") alleging official capacity and individual capacity claims against the Supervisor Defendants and Sheriff Baca. The TAC alleges that the defendants violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The TAC also alleges that there was a conspiracy between the defendants to engage in the wrongful conduct. (TAC ¶¶ 25-29.) On November 17, 2005, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order dismissing the individual capacity claims against the Supervisor Defendants without prejudice.
II. Discussion
A. Legal Standard
Judgment on the pleadings provides a vehicle for summary adjudication on the merits after the pleadings are closed but before trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). The standard for a Rule 12(c) motion is the same as that for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when, even if all material facts in the pleadings are true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the Court must accept all factual allegations of the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. General Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Seventh-Day Adventist Congregational Church, 887 F.2d 228, 230 (9th Cir. 1989). The moving party is not entitled to judgment on the pleadings if the complaint raises issues of fact that, if proved, would support recovery. General Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists, 887 F.2d at 230.
B. Official Capacity Claims Against the Supervisor Defendants are Dismissed
Official capacity suits provide "another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent."Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n. 55 (1978). If the government entity receives notice and an opportunity to respond, an official capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 n. 14 (1985).
The Court finds that the official capacity claims against the Supervisor Defendants are duplicative of the official capacity claims against Sheriff Baca. Therefore, the official capacity claims are dismissed. Additionally, Sheriff Baca may not, absent unusual circumstances unknown to the parties at this time, raise lack of funding as a defense in this case. Lack of funds is not a defense to a purported constitutional violation.
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.