# (PC) Kyle v. California Victim Compensation Board

> District Court, E.D. California · June 7, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10028257

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** June 7, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10028257

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 | Donta Ladeal Kyle, No. 2:21-cv-00479-KJM-KJIN
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER
13 v.
14 California Victim Compensation Board, et al.,
1S Defendants.
16
17 Donta Ladeal a Kyle, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action
18 | seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
19 | Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20 On April 9, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were
21 | served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and
22 | recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. F&Rs, ECF No. 5. The magistrate
23 | judge recommends dismissing the complaint without leave to amend because the defendant, the
24 | California Victim Compensation Board, is not a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See generally
25 | id. Kyle objects to the findings and recommendations, arguing he should be permitted to amend
26 | his complaint to assert a claim against individual officers. See Objections, ECF No. 8.
27 State officials sued in their official capacity for injunctive relief are “persons” under
28 | § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). State officials may also

1 | be sued in their personal capacity under § 1983. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 31 (1991). The
2 | court cannot conclude on this record that Kyle’s proposed amendment would be futile, and Rule
3 | 15(a) imposes a “very liberal” policy in favor of amendment. AmerisourceBergen Corp. v.
4 | Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006). The complaint is thus dismissed with
5 | leave to amend, and the findings and recommendations are adopted in part to that extent. Any
6 | amended complaint must be filed within 60 days. This matter is referred again to the assigned
7 | magistrate judge for all pretrial purposes.
8 IT IS SO ORDERED.
9 DATED: June 7, 2021.

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

45

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10028257. Public record. Not legal advice.