Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01541/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01541-3/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

JAMES R. RHORABOUGH, No. CIV S-05-1541-DFL-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, 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 (Doc. 1), filed on August 2,

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 Department of Corrections. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal

Case 2:05-cv-01541-JAM-CMK Document 16 Filed 10/28/05 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

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

Department of Corrections 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: October 27, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01541-JAM-CMK Document 16 Filed 10/28/05 Page 2 of 2