Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01038/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01038-12/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

JEFFREY J. BIGGS, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1038 LKK GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA STATE, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On September 20, 2006, defendant Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) filed a

motion to dismiss. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. Accordingly, on December 13, 2006, the

court recommended that defendant’s motion be granted, deeming plaintiff’s failure to oppose the

motion to be a waiver of opposition. 

On December 21, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and

recommendations. Plaintiff states that he opposed the motion in his September 27, 2006,

response to defendant’s response to the August 30, 2006,order to show cause. After reviewing

this pleading, the court finds that plaintiff did oppose defendant’s motion. Plaintiff is cautioned

that in the future, he may not include multiple pleadings in single documents. Good cause

appearing, the December 13, 2006, findings and recommendations are vacated and the court

considers the merits of defendant’s motion.

Case 2:05-cv-01038-LKK -GGH Document 43 Filed 04/11/07 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 The case continues against the Governor and the Director of CDCR. 1

2

This action is proceeding on the second amended complaint filed April 20, 2006. 

Plaintiff alleges that he has not received timely parole hearings. Plaintiff seeks money damages

and injunctive relief.

Defendants argue that defendant BPH should be dismissed because it is not a state

actor. The court finds that the claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment rather than on

grounds that defendant BPH is not a state actor. 

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits brought by private parties against a state or

state agency unless the state or the agency consents to such suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S.

332, 99 S. Ct. 1139 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S. Ct. 3057 (1978) ( per curiam);

Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). Although the Eleventh

Amendment is not jurisdictional, the court may raise the defect on its own. Wisconsin

Department of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 389, 118 S. Ct. 2047, 2052 (1998);

Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 677-78, 94 S. Ct. 1347, 1362-1363 (1974). In the instant case,

the State of California has not consented to suit. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against

defendant BPH must be dismissed.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the December 13, 2006, findings

and recommendations are vacated;

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant’s September 20, 2006, motion

to dismiss be granted on grounds that the claims against defendant BPH are barred by the

Eleventh Amendment.

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, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

Case 2:05-cv-01038-LKK -GGH Document 43 Filed 04/11/07 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

3

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are 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: 4/11/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

bigg1038.mtd

Case 2:05-cv-01038-LKK -GGH Document 43 Filed 04/11/07 Page 3 of 3