Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02630/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02630-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

 Although titled an amended complaint, the document filed by plaintiff on April 12,

2006 is an opposition and contains no amended complaint. The docket will be corrected

accordingly.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTTI RUONA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2630 DFL KJM PS

vs.

DEANNA McBRIDE, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Defendant DMV’s motion to dismiss came on regularly for hearing April 26,

2006. Plaintiff appeared in propria persona. Jim Phillips appeared for defendant DMV. Upon

review of the documents in support and opposition,1 upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff and

counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

This is an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of due process

plaintiff alleges he suffered in connection with his DMV records. Plaintiff seeks both injunctive

relief and monetary damages. Defendant DMV moves to dismiss on the ground it is immune

from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Defendant’s position is well taken. Unless a state has

waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity or Congress has overridden it, a state cannot be sued

Case 2:05-cv-02630-RRB -KJM Document 16 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 5
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

 At hearing, counsel for the DMV offered to provide plaintiff the name and contact

information for the DMV ombudsman, even though counsel has no legal obligation to do so.

2

directly in its own name regardless of the relief sought. Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978)

(per curiam ). In enacting section 1983, Congress did not abrogate the state’s immunity. Quern

v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341 (1979). The State of California here has not waived its immunity. 

The DMV, as an agency of the state, is likewise immune. Cal. Gov’t Code § 900.6 (agencies

included in meaning of “State); Cal. Vehicle Code § 1500 (DMV is agency of State). Defendant

DMV’s motion to dismiss should therefore be granted.2

Plaintiff has named two other defendants in the complaint. The docket reflects an

attempt to serve those individuals; however, service has not yet been properly made under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is cautioned that this action may be dismissed if

service of process is not accomplished within 120 days from the date that the complaint is filed. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). This action was filed December 28, 2005 and the 120 day time limit is

now passed. The court will, however, grant an additional sixty days for plaintiff to complete

service of summons. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation that the action be

dismissed.

At hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff requested appointment of

counsel. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require

counsel to represent indigent plaintiffs in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490

U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary

assistance of counsel based on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017

(9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present

case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02630-RRB -KJM Document 16 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within sixty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete service of

summons in accordance with Federal Civil of Procedure Rule 4 on the individual defendants;

2. This matter is set for status conference on August 30, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. in

courtroom no. 26. The parties shall submit to the court and serve by mail on all other parties, no

later than seven days before the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference, a status report

addressing the following matters:

 a. Service of process;

 b. Possible joinder of additional parties;

 c. Any expected or desired amendment of the pleadings;

 d. Jurisdiction and venue;

e. Anticipated motions and the scheduling thereof;

f. The proposed discovery plan developed pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 26(f); 

g. The potential for settlement and specific recommendations regarding

settlement procedures and timing, including whether a settlement

conference should be scheduled and if so when, and whether

referral to the court’s Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program (see

Local Rule 16-271) is appropriate in this case;

 h. Future proceedings, including setting appropriate cutoff dates for 

 discovery and law and motion and the scheduling of a pretrial 

 conference and trial;

 i. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due 

 to the relative simplicity or complexity of the action or 

 proceedings;

Case 2:05-cv-02630-RRB -KJM Document 16 Filed 05/02/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

 j. Whether the case is related to any other case, including matters in 

 bankruptcy;

 k. Whether the parties will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned to 

 this matter acting as settlement judge and waiving any 

 disqualifications by virtue of her so acting, or whether they prefer to 

 have a Settlement Conference before another judge;

 l. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition 

 of this matter;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice;

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to correct the entry for docket no. 12 to reflect

opposition only (no amended complaint) was filed; and 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant DMV’s motion to dismiss be

granted.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 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 and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

"Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that 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: April 28, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02630-RRB -KJM Document 16 Filed 05/02/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

006

ruona.57

Case 2:05-cv-02630-RRB -KJM Document 16 Filed 05/02/06 Page 5 of 5