King v. Calistro

Filing 16

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 15 Motion for Addition of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as Defendant in this Action, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/30/15. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALTON KING,

12
13
14

15

Plaintiff,
v.
CALISTRO,
Defendant.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00698-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR ADDITION OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILIATION AS DEFENDANT IN THIS
ACTION
[ECF No. 15]

Plaintiff Alton King is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On October 19, 2015, the Court found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for relief against

20

Defendant Calistro for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need and retaliation. (ECF No. 14.)

21

The Court forwarded Plaintiff the necessary service of process forms for completion and return to the

22

Court within thirty days. (Id.)

23
24

On October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to identify and service the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) as a Defendant in this action.

25

Although Plaintiff’s second amended does name the CDCR, the State of California’s CDCR

26

and any state correctional agency under its jurisdiction are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.

27

Hale v. State of Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398-1399 (9th Cir. 1993). See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S.

28

781, 782 (1978) (per curiam) (“There can be no doubt … that [a] suit against the State and its Board of
1

1

Corrections is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, unless [the State] has consented to the filing of

2

such suit.”). Because the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against California and its CDCR, there are no

3

circumstances under which Plaintiff can pursue a claim against CDCR. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

4

motion to add the CDCR as a Defendant in this case is DENIED, and this action shall proceed against

5

Defendant Calistro only.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated:

9

October 30, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2