(PC) Levi v. Hill

[7] 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 GERIOLD B. LEVI, No. 2:19-CV-1162-TLN-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 RICK HILL, 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 first amended complaint (ECF No.12). 19 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 20 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 22 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 23 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 24 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 25 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 26 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 27 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 28 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 1 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege 2 with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 3 claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 4 impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 5 and conclusory. [6] 7 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 8 Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) Rick Hill, the prison warden; (2) J. 9 Crawford, a prison Sergeant; and (3) Buchanan, a correctional officer. See ECF No. 12, pg. 2. 10 Plaintiff alleges that defendant Buchanan assaulted him, and that defendant Crawford assisted. See id. 11 at 3. According to plaintiff, defendant Hill “allowed this all to take place at his prison.” Id. Plaintiff 12 claims that Hill did nothing to prevent the attack despite receiving notice that his staff had been 13 accused of multiple instances of misconduct. See id. [14] 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 The court finds plaintiff has stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive 17 force claim against defendants Crawford and Buchanan based on plaintiff’s allegation they 18 assaulted him.1 Plaintiff has not, however, stated a claim against defendant Hill, the prison 19 warden, based on his vague allegation defendant Hill allowed the violation to occur. 20 Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their 21 employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that there is no 22 respondeat superior liability under § 1983). A supervisor is only liable for the constitutional 23 violations of subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations. See id. The 24 Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a supervisory defendant can be liable based on 25 knowledge and acquiescence in a subordinate’s unconstitutional conduct because government 26 officials, regardless of their title, can only be held liable under § 1983 for his or her own conduct [27] 1 By separate order issued herewith, plaintiff will be required to submit documents 28 necessary for service on defendants Crawford and Buchanan by the United States Marshal. 1 and not the conduct of others. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). Supervisory 2 personnel who implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of 3 constitutional rights and the moving force behind a constitutional violation may, however, be 4 liable even where such personnel do not overtly participate in the offensive act. See Redman v. 5 Cnty of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). 6 When a defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link between such 7 defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. 8 Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 9 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of supervisory personnel in 10 civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th 11 Cir. 1982). “[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the 12 official’s own individual actions, has violated the constitution.” Iqbal, 662 U.S. at 676. 13 As currently set forth, plaintiff’s claim against defendant Hill is based on nothing 14 more than a theory of respondeat superior, which is not actionable under § 1983. Plaintiff’s 15 allegation that defendant Hill allowed the alleged violation to occur is too vague to show 16 defendant Hill’s personal involvement. Plaintiff’s amended complaint suggests that Hill should 17 have prevented the assault because he was aware that there were accusations of misconduct 18 amongst his staff. See ECF No. 12, pg. 3. However, this factual allegation, alone, does not 19 establish a connection between Hill’s individual actions and plaintiff’s constitutional 20 deprivations. This defect was identified in the court’s August 16, 2019, order addressing 21 plaintiff’s original complaint and persists in the amended complaint. 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 I. CONCLUSION 2 Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be 3 | cured by further amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to 4 | dismissal of the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 5 | banc). 6 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that: 7 1. Plaintiff's 8th Amendment claim against defendant Hill is dismissed; and 8 2. This action shall proceed only on plaintiff's 8th Amendment claims against 9 | defendants Crawford and Buchanan. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 11 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Within 14 days 12 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 13 | objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 14 | objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 15 | Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). [17] 18 | Dated: October 2, 2019 19 DENNIS M. COTA 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE