Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01310/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01310-2/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 Plaintiff named the California Department of Corrections as a

defendant. Effective July 1, 2005, California abolished the Adult and Youth

Authority, of which the Department of Corrections was a part, and created the

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Cal. Gov’t. Code § 12838.

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Timothy Allen Maldonado,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 05-1310 MCE PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Glenn County Jail, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a California prisoner, without counsel,

prosecuting this civil rights action against the Glenn County

jail and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation1 in

forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was 

referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:05-cv-01310-MCE -PAN Document 8 Filed 01/06/06 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

2

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A I find the complaint fails to

state a claim for relief against the Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation.

Section 1983 creates a cause of action against any person

who, under color of state law, deprives a citizen or person

within the jurisdiction of the United Sates of a constitutional

right. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The state is not a person under section

1983 and this extends to “arms of the state.” Will v. Michigan

Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65-66, 70 (1989).

The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation of the

state of California is an “arm of the state,” see Cal. Gov’t.

Code § 12838(a), and so it is not a person.

For these reasons, I hereby recommend the California

Department of Corrections be dismissed. See Lopez v. Smith, 203

F.3d 1122, 1128 (9th Cir. 2000) (indigent prisoner proceeding

without counsel must be given leave to file amended complaint

unless the court can rule out any possibility that the plaintiff

could state a claim).

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Within 20 days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may

file written objections. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-01310-MCE -PAN Document 8 Filed 01/06/06 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

3

The district judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings

and recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: January 5, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01310-MCE -PAN Document 8 Filed 01/06/06 Page 3 of 3