Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02794/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02794-1/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

TIMOTHY JACKSON SEELEY,

Plaintiff,

vs. No. CIV S-06-2794 MCE CMK P

C. YOUNGBLOOD, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner filed a civil complaint against defendants alleging violations of his

federal constitutional rights and various violations of state law in California state court. Pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, defendants removed this matter to federal court on December 8, 2006. By

separately filed order, the court screened the complaint pursuant to 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). Plaintiff’s

complaint names California Medical Facility as a defendant. The Eleventh Amendment

prohibits federal 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). An entity responsible for

Case 2:06-cv-02794-MCE -CMK Document 11 Filed 01/25/07 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

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). 

Because the California Medical Facility is a state agency for the purposes of the

Eleventh Amendment, it is immune from suit, and plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would

entitle him to relief against this defendant. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984)

(citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners

Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the California Medical

Facility 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 twenty

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

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: January 24, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02794-MCE -CMK Document 11 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 2