Bolton v. Paramo

Background

Jessica Bolton alleged that she was retaliated against after witnessing and reporting correctional officers’ use of excessive force against an inmate. The opinion identifies her as a mental health professional and staff psychologist at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, which is part of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).

Bolton asserted nine causes of action: five claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning retaliation for protected speech, including claims based on official policies, a final policymaker’s conduct, and failure to train or supervise; a retaliation claim under California Labor Code § 1102.5; claims for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and negligent infliction of emotional distress. She also requested injunctive relief.

Rulings on the Government Defendants’ Motion

The court granted the government defendants’ motion to dismiss all causes of action brought against them.

The court granted dismissal of all claims against CDCR because it is a state agency and the Eleventh Amendment bars the relevant federal-court claims against state agencies. The court dismissed all claims against CDCR, including the request for injunctive relief, without leave to amend.

The court also dismissed Bolton’s first through fifth claims against Governor Gavin Newsom and Kathleen Allison in their official capacities, to the extent those claims sought monetary damages. Those claims were dismissed without leave to amend because the Eleventh Amendment barred them.

To the extent Bolton brought those first through fifth claims against Newsom and Allison in their individual capacities, the court dismissed them with leave to amend. The court found that the complaint did not allege enough facts showing that either official participated in, directed, or knew about the alleged conduct. The court also dismissed the request for injunctive relief against Newsom and Allison with leave to amend because Bolton had not adequately connected them to the alleged conduct or identified the specific injunction she sought.

Rulings on the Custodian Staff Defendants’ Motion

The court granted in part and denied in part the custodian staff defendants’ motion to dismiss Bolton’s eighth and ninth causes of action and her request for injunctive relief.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the eighth and ninth causes of action, which alleged intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, because the complaint did not allege facts showing that Bolton complied with the California Government Claims Act or was excused from complying with it. The court stated that Bolton could amend if she could allege such facts.

The court denied the custodian staff defendants’ motion to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds. It held that California Government Code section 815.2(a) did not give those defendants Eleventh Amendment immunity.

The court granted the motion to dismiss Bolton’s request for injunctive relief with leave to amend. It found that Bolton had not alleged enough facts connecting those defendants’ acts to the alleged retaliation and had not identified the injunction she sought.

At the hearing, Bolton explained that Mariah Alvarado had been named prematurely. The court dismissed all claims against Alvarado without prejudice.

Next Step Ordered by the Court

The court ordered Bolton to file an amended complaint by September 10, 2021, and ordered defendants to respond by September 24, 2021. The order terminated Docket Nos. 14 and 16.