Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01649/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01649-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WAYNE WILSON, No. CIV S-05-1649-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint, transferred from the

Northern District of California on August 17, 2005.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). As

discussed in more detail in the court’s order issued herewith, plaintiff’s complaint names as a

defendant the California Medical Facility, Vacaville. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits

federal courts from hearing suits brought against a state both by its own citizens, as well as by

Case 2:05-cv-01649-GEB-CMK Document 13 Filed 11/03/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

citizens of other states. See Brooks v. Sulphar Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053

(9th Cir. 1991). This prohibition extends to suits against states themselves, and to suits against

state agencies. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam);

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A state’s agency responsible for

incarceration and correction of prisoners is a state agency for purposes of the Eleventh

Amendment. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (per curiam); Hale v. Arizona,

993 F.2d 1387, 1398-99 (9th cir. 1993) (en banc).

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that defendant the

California Medical Facility, Vacaville, be dismissed, with prejudice, as an immune defendant.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 2, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01649-GEB-CMK Document 13 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 2