Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01874/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01874-1/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

GARRY G. STEELE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1874 LKK DAD P 

vs.

MARK McMAHON, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

In an order filed concurrently with these findings and recommendations, the

undersigned has screened the prisoner plaintiff’s complaint and determined that plaintiff has sued

a state agency for monetary damages. The Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to

such a 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). Because the

California Highway Patrol is immune from the relief sought, plaintiff’s claims against this

defendant lack an arguable legal basis and should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant California

Highway Patrol be dismissed from this action. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

Case 2:05-cv-01874-DAD Document 5 Filed 09/30/05 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

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: September 29, 2005.

DAD:13

stee1874.56

Case 2:05-cv-01874-DAD Document 5 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 2