(PC) Steele v. McMahon et al, No. 2:2005cv01874 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2005)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/29/05 recommending that defendant CHP be dismissed from the case. Written objections to be filed w/in 20 days. Referred to Judge Karlton. (Brown, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Steele v. McMahon et al Doc. 5 Case 2:05-cv-01874-DAD Document 5 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GARRY G. STEELE, 11 12 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1874 LKK DAD P vs. 13 MARK McMAHON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / In an order filed concurrently with these findings and recommendations, the 17 undersigned has screened the prisoner plaintiff’s complaint and determined that plaintiff has sued 18 a state agency for monetary damages. The Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to 19 such a suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978) 20 (per curiam); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). Because the 21 California Highway Patrol is immune from the relief sought, plaintiff’s claims against this 22 defendant lack an arguable legal basis and should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 23 24 25 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant California Highway Patrol be dismissed from this action. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:05-cv-01874-DAD Document 5 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 2 of 2 1 twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 2 written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections 3 to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 4 objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal 5 the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 DATED: September 29, 2005. 7 8 9 DAD:13 stee1874.56 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
