Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00698/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00698-2/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

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Alton King is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On October 19, 2015, the Court found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for relief against 

Defendant Calistro for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need and retaliation. (ECF No. 14.) 

The Court forwarded Plaintiff the necessary service of process forms for completion and return to the 

Court within thirty days. (Id.) 

On October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to identify and service the California Department 

of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) as a Defendant in this action. 

Although Plaintiff’s second amended does name the CDCR, the State of California’s CDCR 

and any state correctional agency under its jurisdiction are not persons subject to suit under § 1983. 

Hale v. State of Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398-1399 (9th Cir. 1993). See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 

781, 782 (1978) (per curiam) (“There can be no doubt ... that [a] suit against the State and its Board of 

ALTON KING,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CALISTRO,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00698-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR ADDITION OF CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILIATION AS DEFENDANT IN THIS 

ACTION

[ECF No. 15]

Case 1:15-cv-00698-SAB Document 16 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

Corrections is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, unless [the State] has consented to the filing of 

such suit.”). Because the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against California and its CDCR, there are no 

circumstances under which Plaintiff can pursue a claim against CDCR. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

motion to add the CDCR as a Defendant in this case is DENIED, and this action shall proceed against 

Defendant Calistro only. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00698-SAB Document 16 Filed 11/02/15 Page 2 of 2