Garrett v. Sycuan Casino
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se complaint filed by William Allen Garrett against Sycuan Casino and its employees, alleging due process violations and ADA discrimination related to a previously litigated jackpot dispute. The court denied the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim due to sovereign immunity, and overruled the plaintiff's objection as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis“Upon review, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP request” | unsure The order does not provide the specific financial findings or reasoning for denying the IFP application, only stating that it is denied. While often tied to the dismissal, the specific basis for the IFP denial is not recited in the text. |
Dismissal of Complaint with Prejudice“The Court DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs Complaint in its entirety based on his failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)1) and 1915A(b)(1); and the Court finds amendment would be futile.” | agree with court The court relies on the prior dismissal in *Garrett I* (2024 WL 3798398) which established that Sycuan Casino is entitled to sovereign immunity. The court correctly identifies that the new ADA claim does not alter the sovereign immunity analysis for a federally recognized tribe. Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate where amendment is futile, as sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional bar that cannot be cured by pleading. |
Overruling of Objection as Moot“The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection as MOOT.” | agree with court Since the case is dismissed with prejudice, any pending objections to the dismissal or the court's authority are rendered moot. This is a standard procedural consequence of a final dismissal. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the screening statutes for pro se litigants. It relies on a prior, identical dismissal by the same court to establish the sovereign immunity bar. The court correctly notes that the addition of an ADA claim does not overcome the jurisdictional bar of tribal sovereign immunity. The citation to *Gonzalez* and *Bonin* supports the decision to dismiss with prejudice rather than without prejudice, as amendment would be futile. The order is concise but sufficient for a screening dismissal based on prior law.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM ALLEN GARRETT, Case No.: 3:25-cv-01596-JES-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING APPLICATION TO 14 SYCUAN CASINO, et al., PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Defendants. AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE; 16 17 (2) OVERRULING OBJECTION AS MOOT 18 19 [ECF Nos. 2, 5]
20 On June 20, 2025, Plaintiff William Allen Garrett (“Plaintiff”) proceeding pro se, 21 filed a complaint alleging due process and ADA discrimination punishment naming 22 Defendant Sycuan Casino1 and individual employees of Sycuan Casino in their official 23 24 25 1 The Court presumes Plaintiff means to refer to the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, which is a 26 “federally recognized tribe of Mission Indians from Southern California, located in an unincorporated area of San Diego County just east of El Cajon. The Sycuan band are a Kumeyaay tribe, one of the four ethnic 27 groups indigenous to San Diego County.” See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sycuan_Band_of_the_Kumeyaay_Nation (last visited August 10, 2024). 28 1 capacity. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 (“IFP”). ECF No. 2. On July 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed an objection against sovereign 3 immunity. ECF No. 5. Upon review, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP request and 4 DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The 5 Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection as MOOT. 6 Plaintiff previously filed a complaint regarding this matter. See 3:24-cv-01296-JES- 7 SBC, ECF No. 1. On July 25, 2024, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint alleging 8 breach of contract, fourteenth amendment and due process violations naming Defendant 9 Sycuan Casino and individual employees of Sycuan Casino in their official capacity. Id. 10 Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed IFP in that case and the Court conducted a screening 11 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and dismissed the case with prejudice since Sycuan 12 Casino is entitled to sovereign immunity. Garrett v. Sycuan Casino, No. 3:24-cv-01296- 13 JES-SBC, 2024 WL 3798398, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2024) (“Garrett I”). In Garrett I, 14 Plaintiff alleged he was deprived of a $2,335 jackpot won while at Sycuan Casino. Id. at 15 *1. 16 On June 20, 2025, Plaintiff once again filed a complaint against Sycuan Casino, a 17 commissioner and a slot machine supervisor alleging a due process violation and ADA 18 discrimination. Compl. at 5-8. This new complaint relates to the jackpot Plaintiff 19 previously alleged he won and was deprived of receiving. Id. at 7. The factual allegations 20 in this new case are the same as Garrett I and the only cause of action that is different is a 21 new cause of action for ADA discrimination. The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s 22 initial case with prejudice, because Sycuan is entitled to sovereign immunity. See Garrett 23 I, 2024 WL 3798398, at *2. Plaintiff’s new cause of action does not change that analysis. 24 25 26 27 Sycuan Casino is an Indian gaming casino owned by the Sycuan Tribe. See 28 l Thus, the Court concludes Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed sua sponte for 2 ||failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 3 1915(e)(2)(B)Gi) and 1915A(b)(1). 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs 5 ||Complaint in its entirety based on his failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 6 || granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)1) and 1915A(b)(1); and the Court finds 7 ||amendment would be futile. See Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of L.A., 759 F.3d 1112, 8 (9" Cir. 2014) (“Futility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of ... leave 9 amend.’”) (quoting Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9" Cir. 1995)). The Clerk of 10 || Court is directed to close this case. No further filings will be accepted on this case. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: July 29, 2025 13 4 we Sn— “4 A. 14 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28