Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01707/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01707-5/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

ANTHONY GASTON, No. CIV S-03-1707-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

EDWARD CADEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 30, 2005, the court directed service of plaintiff’s second

amended complaint by the U.S. Marshal on ten named defendants. To date, five defendants have

either already appeared in the action or have waived service of the second amended complaint. 

The following five defendants remain unserved: Cappell, Arceo, Valdez, “CDC,” and “CMF.” 

On February 7, 2006, the court directed plaintiff to show cause why these five defendants should

not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which provides that an action

shall be dismissed as against any defendant who is not served within 120 days after the

complaint is filed. 

In response to the court’s order to show cause, on February 27, 2006, plaintiff

filed a document entitled “Notice and Motion for Full Federal Investigation on the Deliberate

Destruction and/or Confiscation of all Plaintiff’s Legal Material in This Matter.” In this

document, plaintiff states that prison official shave engaged in a conspiracy to destroy his legal

Case 2:03-cv-01707-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 03/23/06 Page 1 of 4
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

materials, specifically documents establishing that the unserved defendants were, in fact, served. 

Plaintiff does not, however, state which prison officials have engaged in such conduct. It is,

therefore, impossible for the court to evaluate this assertion. Accordingly, the court will

recommend that this request be denied. 

Plaintiff also filed a document entitled “Motion for Default Judgment” in which

he seeks a judgment by default against the unserved defendants. Plaintiff asserts that all ten

defendants have been served and that, therefore, he is entitled to a default judgment against the

five defendants who have not appeared in the action. As “proof” of service, plaintiff attaches the

process receipt and return from the U.S. Marshal indicating that summons were mailed for

waiver of service. These documents do not, however, establish that any defendant was actually

served or waived service. In particular, the documents do not establish service as to any of the

five unserved defendants. Therefore, the court will also recommend that this request be denied. 

On February 27, 2006, plaintiff also filed a document entitled “Plaintiff Motion to

Obtain Court Order to Obtain Possession and Access to a Typewriter During Litigation of the

Above-Entitled Matter.” To the extent this represents a request for injunctive relief, plaintiff has

not specified any named defendant in the motion. This court is unable to issue an order against

individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine

Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). In addition, plaintiff has not shown either irreparable

injury or that the hardships tip in his favor. To prevail, the moving party must show either a

likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious

questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the movant’s favor. See

Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune,

Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). Here, the court cannot

discern any such harm because a typewriter is not required in order to litigate this case. Plaintiff

is free to file hand-written documents, as he has done in the past.

The court now addresses whether the unserved defendants should now be

Case 2:03-cv-01707-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 4
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

A state’s agency responsible for incarceration and correction of prisoners is a 1

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).

3

dismissed. As to defendants named as “CDC” and “CMF,” the court finds that dismissal of

those defendants is appropriate under the Eleventh Amendment. 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. Sulphur 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 1

curiam); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “CDC” refers to the former

California Department of Corrections, currently the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, which is immune. “CMF” refers to the California Medical Facility, which is also

immune. Therefore, dismissal of these unserved defendants is appropriate.

As to Cappell, Arceo, and Valdez, plaintiff has not shown good cause why these

defendants should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m). The court will, therefore, recommend

dismissal of these unserved defendants as well.

Finally, on March 17, 2006, those defendants who have already appeared in the

action filed a request to extend the time within which to respond to the second amended

complaint. Good cause appearing therefor, the court will recommend that defendants’ answer

not be due until 30 days after these findings and recommendations are addressed by the district

judge assigned to this case.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Plaintiff’s request, entitled “Notice and Motion for Full Federal

Investigation on the Deliberate Destruction and/or Confiscation of all Plaintiff’s Legal Material

in This Matter,” be denied;

2. Plaintiff’s request, entitled “Motion for Default Judgment,” be denied;

Case 2:03-cv-01707-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 03/23/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

3. Plaintiff’s request, entitled “Plaintiff Motion to Obtain Court Order to

Obtain Possession and Access to a Typewriter During Litigation of the Above-Entitled Matter,”

be denied;

4. Defendants “CDC” and “CMF” be dismissed as immune under the

Eleventh Amendment;

5. Defendants Cappell, Arceo, and Valdez be dismissed pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m); and

6. Defendants Caden, Aguirre, Haley, Manuel, and Prebula be directed to file

a response to the second amended complaint within 30 days of the date these findings and

recommendations are addressed by the district judge assigned to this case.

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 ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

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

Findings and Recommendations.” 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: March 22, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-01707-LKK -CMK Document 58 Filed 03/23/06 Page 4 of 4