Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01139/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01139-4/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

CHARLES HENRY CARR, JR., No. CIV S-05-1139-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

MARGARITA PEREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local

Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On November 3, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff has filed objections to

the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. 

The magistrate judge has recommended dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint because he

perceives it to be a habeas case and because the defendants are immune from suit.

Case 2:05-cv-01139-LKK -CMK Document 15 Filed 01/17/06 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

1

 There may be other grounds for dismissal. The court expresses no opinion on that

matter, believing it appropriate for the magistrate judge to first review the complaint for its

sufficiency.

2

From all that appears, however, plaintiff is, as he asserts, challenging the constitutionality

of the procedures employed during his parole hearing. Accordingly, he may, as he notes in his

objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, bring the action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Wilkerson v. Dotson, 125 S.Ct. 1242 (2005). Because the court is

required to give all appropriate inferences to plaintiff’s pleading, the court concludes that the suit

against the named defendants is in their official capacity and, accordingly, their immunity in their

personal capacity does not bar the suit.

The court must thus decline to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations.1 The matter is remanded to the magistrate judge for further proceedings

consistent with this order.

DATED: January 13, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:05-cv-01139-LKK -CMK Document 15 Filed 01/17/06 Page 2 of 2