Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01873/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01873-10/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

L. QIYAM POGUE, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1873 MCE GGH P

vs.

JAMES E. TILTON, Acting Secretary of

the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. By concurrently filed order, the court has found plaintiff’s second amended complaint

appropriate for service upon certain defendants. However, as to defendant California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR),the Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional

bar to suits brought by private parties against a state or state agency unless the state or the agency

consents to such suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781

(1978)( per curiam); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). In the

instant case, the State of California has not consented to suit and the court finds that this

defendant should be dismissed.

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-01873-MCE -GGH Document 62 Filed 09/26/07 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

As to defendants all unnamed wardens of CDCR prisons, firecamps and

community correctional facilities, plaintiff has no standing to name these parties as defendants. 

To the extent plaintiff seeks to sue any warden who is not the warden of the facility wherein he is

incarcerated, he appears to be attempting to circumvent the court’s prior ruling that he may only

proceed in this action on his own behalf. Halet v. Wend Inv. Co., 672 F.2d 1305, 1308 (9th Cir.

1982) (party must assert [his] own rights not those of third parties), citing Duke Power Co. v.

Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 U.S. 59, 80, 98 S. Ct. 2620, 2634 (1978); Warth v.

Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499, 95 S. Ct. 2197, 2205 (1974). Among the defendants against whom

plaintiff has been found to have made cognizable claims, plaintiff has been permitted to proceed

against the warden of Pleasant Valley State Prison where he is incarcerated.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and all unnamed wardens of CDCR prisons,

firecamps and community correctional facilities be dismissed as defendants.

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 twenty

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: 9/25/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

pogu1873.fr

Case 2:05-cv-01873-MCE -GGH Document 62 Filed 09/26/07 Page 2 of 2