Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01598/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01598-0/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

William Guy,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 00-1598 LKK PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

California Department

of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, prosecuting a

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He names the

California Department of Corrections as a defendant.

Section 1983 creates a cause of action against any person

who, under color of state law, deprives a citizen or person

within the jurisdiction of the United Sates of a constitutional

right. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The state is not a person under section

1983 and this extends to “arms of the state.” Will v. Michigan

Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65-66, 70 (1989); see

Case 2:00-cv-01598-LKK -EFB Document 31 Filed 09/08/05 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

also Hale v. State of Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1993)

(Arizona Department of Corrections and agency supervising its

prison industries were both arms of the state and therefore not

“persons” under section 1983). The California Department of

Corrections is not a person under section 1983.

Accordingly, I recommend that all claims against the

California Department of Corrections be dismissed.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: September 8, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:00-cv-01598-LKK -EFB Document 31 Filed 09/08/05 Page 2 of 2