(PC) Mora v. Desimone ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISMAIL MORA, No. 2:23-CV-0155-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CHRISTOPHER DESIMONE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, in which he 19 names the State of California as a defendant. 20 The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought 21 against a state both by its own citizens, as well as by citizens of other states. See Brooks v. 22 Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991). This prohibition 23 extends to suits against states themselves, and to suits against state agencies. See Lucas v. Dep’t 24 of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th 25 Cir. 1989). Because the State of California is immune from suit, it should be dismissed as a 26 defendant to this action. 27 / / / 28 / / / ] Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that the State of California 2 || be dismissed as a defendant to this action. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 4 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 5 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 6 || with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 7 || Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 8 | Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 10 || Dated: February 9, 2023 Ss..c0_, DENNIS M. COTA 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28