Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01144/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01144-8/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELLY WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01144-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL, AND

DISMISSING DEFENDANTS YUBA CITY,

SUTTER COUNTY, AND CDCR FROM

ACTION

(Doc. 17) 

Plaintiff Kelly Wilson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On September 12, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed an objection to the

Findings and Recommendations on September 27, 2006.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

Court finds the Findings andRecommendationsto be supported bythe record and by proper analysis.

Plaintiff objects to the dismissal of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (CDCR) from this action. Based on the language of the Eleventh Amendment, 

///

Case 1:05-cv-01144-LJO -SMS Document 23 Filed 10/18/06 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

2

plaintiff disagrees with the Magistrate Judge that his claim against CDCR is barred by the Eleventh

Amendment.

The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against an

unconsenting state. Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Co., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir.

1991) (citation omitted); see also Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1122 (1996);

Puerto Rico Aqueduct Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993); Austin v.

State Indus. Ins. Sys., 939 F.2d 676, 677 (9th Cir. 1991). Although plaintiff’s confusion is

understandable, “the Eleventh Amendment has long been construed to extend to suits brought

against a state by its own citizens, as well as by citizens of other states.” Brooks, 951 F.2d at 1053

(citations omitted). “The Eleventh Amendment’s jurisdictional bar covers suits naming state

agencies and departments as defendants, and applies whether the relief is legal or equitable in

nature.” Id. (citation omitted). Therefore, the Magistrate Judge did not err in recommending

dismissal of CDCR on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 12, 2006, is adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed June 8, 2006, is deemed withdrawn;

3. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s original complaint, filed September 8, 2005,

against defendants Terhune, Adams, Castillo, Nguyen, K. Nguyen, Pak, and Shedler

for acting with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs, in

violation of the Eighth Amendment;

4. Defendants Yuba City and Sutter County are dismissed from this action on the

ground that plaintiff’s claims against them are barred by the statute of limitations;

and

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-01144-LJO -SMS Document 23 Filed 10/18/06 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

3

5. Defendant CDCR is dismissed from this action on the ground that plaintiff’s claim

against it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01144-LJO -SMS Document 23 Filed 10/18/06 Page 3 of 3