Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-04620/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-04620-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TROY ALEXANDER RICHARDSON, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ET 

AL., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 18-cv-04620-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Re: Dkt. No. 19 

The Court carefully reviewed the parties’ papers filed in connection with the Motion of 

defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), et al., to Dismiss the 

First Amended Complaint of plaintiff Troy Alexander Richardson (Dkt. No. 19) and issued a 

tentative ruling on the motion on January 5, 2019. (Dkt. No. 27.) No party requested oral 

argument and the hearing was vacated. The Court now ORDERS as follows: 

First, defendants withdrew their argument that California Government Code section 845.8 

bars plaintiff’s claims (Reply at 2:4-5). The motion to dismiss on these grounds is DENIED. 

Second, Richardson concedes that defendant S. Kernan should be dismissed. (See Oppo. at 

3, fn. 1; Helbraun Decl. ¶ 4.) Therefore, the motion to dismiss as to defendant Kernan is

GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 

On the merits of the motion to dismiss Richardson’s claims against the remaining two 

warden defendants, Davis and Hatton, the motion is DENIED. 

Under section 1983, “[a] supervisor can be liable in his individual capacity for his own 

culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his subordinates; for his 

acquiescence in the constitutional deprivation; or for conduct that showed a reckless or callous 

indifference to the rights of others.” Starr v Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 

Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989). A claim that a government official knew of 

Case 4:18-cv-04620-YGR Document 29 Filed 01/09/19 Page 1 of 3
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

unconstitutional conditions and “culpable actions of his subordinates” but failed to act amounts 

establishes acquiescence, id., or if he “set[ ] in motion a series of acts by others, or knowingly 

refused to terminate a series of acts by others, which he kn[e]w or reasonably should [have] 

know[n], would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.” Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 

F.2d 630, 646 (9th Cir. 1991). Further, a section 1983 claim is stated against a defendant if 

plaintiff alleges facts which would show that he “disregarded the known or obvious consequences 

that a particular omission in [the agency’s] training program would cause . . . employees to violate 

citizens’ constitutional rights.” Flores v. County of Los Angeles, 758 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 

2014) (quoting Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 51-52 (2011)). 

Similarly, under California’s Government Code section 820.8, individuals cannot be found 

liable vicariously for injuries caused by the action or inaction of another, but they can be liable for 

their own involvement in the wrongful conduct. Rodriguez v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 96 F. Supp. 3d 

990, 1000 (C.D. Cal. 2014), aff’d, 891 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2018) (supervisory defendants cannot be

liable for subordinates’ use of excessive force, pursuant to section 820.8, but can be liable for their 

own witnessing and directing subordinates to violate plaintiffs’ rights); McKay v. City of 

Hayward, 949 F.Supp.2d 971, 988 (N.D.Cal.2013) (“[T]he failure to intervene in another officer’s 

use of excessive force is an independent omission, and not a claim immunized by California 

Government Code § 820.8.”). 

Thus, in order to state a claim against these defendants under section 1983 and avoid 

statutory immunity under California law pursuant to Government Code section 820.8, Richardson 

must allege a basis for liability which shows Davis and Hatton were directly involved in the 

alleged wrongful conduct or had knowledge of the wrongful conduct and acquiesced in it. 

Richardson has done so in the FAC. (See FAC ¶¶ 36-41, 57, 74.) 

However, Richardson concedes that the FAC needs to be amended in some respects to 

clarify that defendants Hatton and Davis are sued in their individual capacities in the federal law 

claims, and to correct typographical errors as to certain dates. (See Oppo at 3:14-15 and fn. 1, 5:1-

4; Helbraun Decl. ¶ 3.) Richardson is therefore GRANTED LEAVE TO AMEND to correct these 

deficiencies. 

Case 4:18-cv-04620-YGR Document 29 Filed 01/09/19 Page 2 of 3
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Richardson may also amend the complaint to include the additional allegations offered in 

opposition. Plaintiff indicated that he could amend to add allegations to the effect that defendants 

Davis and Hatton were advised of escaped prisoners and inmates subjected to administrative 

segregation, and that plaintiff notified these defendants that was returned to prison wrongly. (See

Oppo. at 3, 5, n.2 14-15; Helbraun Decl. ¶¶ 5, 6.) While the Court does not find the allegations 

necessary to state a viable claim, they serve to clarify Richardson’s theory of liability against these 

two defendants. Any amendments beyond the limits set forth herein must be sought by way of a 

noticed motion for leave to amend. 

Richardson shall file his Second Amended Complaint within 14 days of entry of this 

Order. Defendants shall file their answer within 14 days thereafter. 

This terminates Docket No. 19. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 9, 2019 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:18-cv-04620-YGR Document 29 Filed 01/09/19 Page 3 of 3