ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS

ROGER T. BENITEZ, District Judge.

Before this Court is a Motion to Dismiss, filed by Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). (Docket No. 29.) For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff David Robert Bell filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, et seq., against CDCR and six individual doctors and nurses, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated in Corcoran, California, and is proceeding pro se.

Prior to his transfer to Corcoran, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJD") where he made several requests for medical care related to spinal and shoulder pain. Plaintiff claims that although he was examined by two nurses, they did not make a diagnosis regarding his condition. Plaintiff subsequently underwent three MRIs and two surgeries, and he now has a titanium rod implanted in his lower back. (Compl. 12-13, 15-16.)

Plaintiff contends he received inadequate medical care from nurses and doctors at RJD and Avenal State Prison. (Compl. 6, 12-14.) In support, Plaintiff claims that a Dr. Yoo, during a visit to Tri-City Medical Center, told Plaintiff that had he received proper medical treatment, antibiotics would have been sufficient to treat Plaintiffs condition. (Compl. 13.) According to Plaintiff, Dr. Yoo concluded that "surgery was inevitable because plaintiff was `too far along' and his abscess was congruently attached to a `nerve root'." (Compl. 13.)

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss a complaint if, taking all factual allegations as true, the complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007). Dismissal is appropriate if the complaint fails to state enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the matter complained of, or if the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory under which relief may be granted. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.

DISCUSSION

CDCR argues it must be dismissed as a defendant from this case because it is a state agency immune from suit according the Eleventh Amendment.

The Eleventh Amendment prohibits private individuals from suing a state for money damages. U.S. Const. amend. XI; Seminole Tribe ofFla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 72-76 (1996); see also Taylor v. Westly, 402 F.3d 924, 929 (9th Cir. 2005). Unless a state waives immunity to such suits, "agencies of the state are immune from private damage actions or suits for injunctive relief brought in federal court." Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 1999). Further, the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity was not abrogated by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or other provisions of the Civil Rights Act. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341 (1979).

It is clear that CDCR is a state agency. Brown v. Cal. Dept. of Corr., 554 F.3d 747,752 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment). And, Plaintiff, suing as a private individual, only seeks monetary damages-particularly $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages. As such, no cognizable legal theory supports Plaintiff's claim against CDCR, and Plaintiff is precluded from suing CDCR in this action.

CONCLUSION

The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. CDCR is therefore DISMISSED from the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.