Boone v. Gomez

Background

Velton Lamont Boone, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed two proposed amended complaints. Although he did not file a formal motion requesting permission to amend, the court treated the filings as including that request because of his status as a self-represented prisoner.

The proposed amendments sought to add damages claims against two state agencies, CALPIA and CDCR, and against individual defendants in their official capacities. They also added M. Whitney as a defendant without alleging any actions or omissions by her. In addition, the proposed complaints alleged a “hostile work environment,” but did not allege unlawful discrimination.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that it could deny permission to amend if the proposed new claims were not legally cognizable, meaning they could not proceed as legally valid claims. If permission to amend were granted, the court would also have to screen the amended complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to determine whether they were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant.

The court held that the damages claims against CALPIA and CDCR, and the claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities, were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The court also found that the proposed complaints did not state a cognizable claim against M. Whitney because they contained no allegations about her conduct. Finally, the court stated that a hostile work environment, by itself, does not violate federal law without unlawful discrimination, which Boone had not alleged.

Disposition

The court denied leave to file the two proposed amended complaints and struck them from the docket. The original complaint remained the operative complaint. Because the proposed amendments had been rejected, the court denied defendants’ motion to strike as unnecessary. The existing schedule for briefing on dispositive motions remained in effect. Judge Jeffrey White issued the order.