Price v. Chen
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-03243
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Price v. Chen, Judge White dismissed claims against DSH, denied other motions, and ordered service information for Chen.
Marcus Price’s claims against the California Department of State Hospitals were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Dr. James H. Chen was not dismissed at this stage, but Price was required to provide a service address, serve Chen himself, or show cause by June 1, 2023.
What happened
In Price v. Chen, Marcus Price, representing himself, sued Napa State Hospital and Dr. James H. Chen under a federal civil-rights law. The hospital is run by the California Department of State Hospitals, which the court treated as the proper defendant for claims against the hospital.
The court granted the Department’s motion to dismiss because the state agency was protected from these claims by constitutional immunity for states and their agencies. It denied the Department’s motions for summary judgment and more time, granted its motion to file documents under seal, and directed Price to provide a current address for Chen, serve him himself, or explain why he could not do so.
Judge Jeffrey S. White warned that failure to take one of those steps by June 1, 2023, would result in dismissal of the claims against Chen without prejudice under the service rule. The order dismissed the claims against the Department but did not then dismiss the claims against Chen.
The detailed version
- Price v. Chen · No. 4:22-cv-03243
- Jeffrey White
- Apr. 21, 2023
Background
Marcus Price, a California parolee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously found that his amended complaint stated legally recognizable claims against Napa State Hospital (NSH) and Dr. James H. Chen, a doctor who worked there. The California Department of State Hospitals (DSH) runs NSH.
The court ordered the United States Marshal to serve Chen at NSH and to serve DSH. DSH was served, but the Marshal could not serve Chen because NSH authorities said Chen no longer worked there. The opinion states that Price was entitled to have the Marshal serve Chen without charge because he was indigent, but that the Marshal needed a correct address.
Motion to Dismiss
DSH moved to dismiss the claims against NSH under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Because NSH was not a separate legal entity that could be sued, the court treated DSH as the proper defendant for the claims against NSH.
The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred both Price’s damages claims and his claims for injunctive relief against DSH. The court explained that DSH is an agency of the State of California; that DSH had not waived its immunity; that Congress had not removed that immunity for § 1983 suits; and that the exception allowing prospective relief against certain state officials does not apply to state agencies. The court therefore granted DSH’s motion to dismiss, and the claims against DSH were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The opinion does not state that this dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Unserved Defendant
The court ordered Price, by June 1, 2023, to provide a current address where Dr. Chen could be served or to serve Chen himself. The court also allowed Price to show cause—give a reason why the deadline should not apply. The court stated that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which addresses the deadline for completing service. The court specifically stated that the claims against Chen would be dismissed without prejudice if Price did not comply or show cause.
Other Motions and Clerk’s Instructions
The court denied DSH’s motion for summary judgment as unnecessary. It denied the motions for an extension of time and granted the motion to file documents under seal. The court directed the Clerk to correct the docket entry for docket number 29 because it was a declaration, not a motion. The order disposed of docket numbers 23, 24, 27, 28, and 29.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.