Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01340/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01340-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

 On August 28, 2006, plaintiff’s section 1983 retaliation and equal protection claims, and 42 U.S.C. § 1

1985(3) claim were dismissed from this action for failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted, and

defendants Kavanaugh and Moran were dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state any claims

upon which relief may be granted against them. (Doc. 34.) 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01340-LJO-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM, WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. 59)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS

SCRIBNER, ANDREWS, HICKMAN,

SCHWARZENEGGER, AND WOODFORD TO

FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY

DAYS

I. Order

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended

complaint, filed January 26, 2006, against defendants Hart, Bonilla, Smith, Davis, Kellog, Scribner,

Andrews, Schwarzenegger, Hickman, and Woodford for excessive force, and against defendant

Amaya for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs, in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. On October 30, 2006, defendants Scribner, Andrews, Schwarzenegger, Hickman, and 1

Case 1:05-cv-01340-LJO-GSA Document 68 Filed 04/06/07 Page 1 of 6
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

2

Woodford filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Docs. 59-61.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on November 21, 2006. (Doc.

62.) 

B. Legal Standard

“The focus of any Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal . . . is the complaint.” Schneider v. California

Dept. of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). In considering a motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim, the Court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the

light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and resolve all doubts in the pleader's favor.

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, reh’g denied, 396 U.S. 869 (1969). The federal system

is one of notice pleading. Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1126 (2002). “Rule

8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions,” none of

which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002);

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). “Such a

statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. 

A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any

set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Id. at 514. Discovery and summary

judgment motions - not motions to dismiss - “define disputed facts” and “dispose of unmeritorious

claims.” Id. at 512. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the

claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of the

pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test.’” Jackson v. Carey, 353

F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also

Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need suffice only to put the

opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir.

2001))). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should not be granted unless it appears

beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him

Case 1:05-cv-01340-LJO-GSA Document 68 Filed 04/06/07 Page 2 of 6
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 Plaintiff’s amended complaint contains two paragraphs identified as the twenty-sixth paragraph. 2

3

to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.

41, 45-46 (1957));see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th

Cir. 1981). 

C. Discussion

The Court has a statutory duty to screen complaints in cases such as this and dismiss any

claims which fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. Given this requirement, the Court is disinclined to view with favor a subsequent

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The instant motion is no exception. 

In a Findings and Recommendations, the undersigned, at that time a Magistrate Judge,

summarized plaintiff’s allegations as follows:

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that on May 22, 2005, he was escorted from the

dining hall to the program office by defendants Hart and Bonilla with defendant

Smith following behind. (Doc. 16, Amend. Comp., ¶26 (page 7). ) After entering 2

the office, defendant Bonilla held plaintiff while defendants Hart and Smith hit him

in the head and face and slammed his head into the wall. (Id., ¶26 (page 8).)

Plaintiff was subsequently placed in a holding cage, at which point he called

defendant Smith a racist. (Id.) Defendant Smith then sprayed plaintiff in the face

with pepper spray, after which defendants Bonilla and Hart took plaintiff to the

administrative segregation unit for decontamination. (Id., ¶¶26 (page 8), 27.)

Plaintiff was taken to a shower and defendant Bonilla held plaintiff while defendant

Hart put plaintiff in the water. (Id., ¶27.) Plaintiff screamed that the water was hot

and defendant Hart began hitting plaintiff in the head and pushing his head and face

into the shower walls. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants Davis, Kellog, and a

Doe defendant were present when defendants Bonilla and Hart placed plaintiff in the

shower and defendant Hart “torched” him with hot water and beat him, but did

nothing to intervene. (Id., ¶28.) Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the beatings, he

sustained a concussion, head trauma, head pain, a swollen and infected left eye, and

a swollen right cheek and left eyelid. (Id., ¶29.)

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Amaya came to administrative segregation after the

assault and asked plaintiff his name and number. (Id., ¶36.) Plaintiff told defendant

Amaya that he had been hit and slammed into wall, and was in pain, but defendant

filed a report stating that plaintiff had no injuries. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that this

caused him to be denied medical attention and that defendant Amaya acted with

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. (Id., ¶¶36, 37.)

On June 7, 2005, plaintiff filed a staff complaint against defendants Hart and Smith

for the beatings. (Id., ¶31.) Defendant Kavanaugh investigated the complaint and

concluded that it was false. (Id., ¶¶31, 32.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant

Kavanaugh filed a false Rules Violation Report against him, for filing a false staff

complaint. (Id., ¶32.) Plaintiff was subsequently found guilty of the rules violation.

Case 1:05-cv-01340-LJO-GSA Document 68 Filed 04/06/07 Page 3 of 6
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

4

(Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Moran was assigned as the investigative employee.

(Id., ¶34.) Plaintiff told defendant Moran that the CDC 7219 (Medical Report of

Injury of Unusual Occurrence form) prepared by defendant Amaya was false because

defendant Amaya failed to document plaintiff’s injuries. (Id..) Plaintiff alleges he

told defendant Moran that the day after the incident he was examined by Dr. Dang

as an assault victim, and Dr. Dang ordered x-rays, and gave plaintiff an ice pack and

acetaminophen. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants Moran and Kavanaugh refused

to question Dr. Dang. (Id., ¶35.) 

Plaintiff alleges that there is a pattern and practice of excessive force at Corcoran,

of which defendants Scribner and Andrews were aware. (Id., ¶38.) Plaintiff alleges

that there is a pattern and practice of using excessive force against African American

inmates as they exit the dining hall following their meal, and that defendants

Scribner and Andrews were aware of it. (Id., ¶39.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants

Schwarzenegger, Hickman and Woodford were aware of the pattern and practices

of excessive force and discrimination occurring in all state prisons. (Id., ¶40.) 

(Doc. 26, 3:9-4:21 (emphasis added).) The record was reviewed de novo by the Honorable Anthony

W. Ishii and the Findings and Recommendations adopted in full. (Doc. 34.) Defendants now move

for dismissal on the ground that plaintiff has not alleged specific facts demonstrating their personal

knowledge of or the participation in the violation of plaintiff’s rights.

 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation

of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution .

. . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law,suit in equity,

or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. “Section 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal

Constitution and laws.” Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997)

(internal quotations omitted.) “To the extent that the violation of a state law amounts to the

deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the federal Constitution,

Section 1983 offers no redress.” Id. 

Section 1983 plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions

of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v.

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “‘A

person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of [§] 1983,

if [that person] does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform

Case 1:05-cv-01340-LJO-GSA Document 68 Filed 04/06/07 Page 4 of 6
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

5

an act which [that person] is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint

is made.’” Hydrick v. Hunter, 466 F.3d 676, 689 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588

F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he ‘requisite causal connection can be established not only by

some kind of direct, personal participation in the deprivation, but also be setting in motion a series

of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the

constitutional injury.’” Id. (quoting Johnson at 743-44). 

Under section 1983, liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel for the actions

of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior. When the named defendant holds a

supervisorial position, the causal link between the defendant and the claimed constitutional violation

must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v.

Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). To state a claim for

relief under section 1983 for supervisory liability, plaintiff must allege some facts indicating that the

defendant either: personally participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of

the violations and failed to act to prevent them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient

that the policy ‘itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the

constitutional violation.’” Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations

omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

The federal system is one of notice pleading and plaintiff is not required at this stage in the

proceedings to set forth specific facts showing how the defendants’ actions or omissions led to the

violation of his rights. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), Hydrick, 466 F.3d at 689. Rather, plaintiff need only

plead sufficient facts to place defendants on notice as to the basis of the claim against them, and to

avoid dismissal on the basis that it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts

entitling him to relief. In this instance, by alleging that defendants were aware of the pattern and

practice of the use of excessive force, plaintiff has done all that he needs to do to satisfy Rule 8(a)

and state a claim. To the extent that plaintiff’s claims have no merit and he is in fact attempting to

impose liability on defendants based on nothing more than their high-level positions of employment,

a motion for summary judgment is the appropriate vehicle to advance such an argument.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim shall be denied, with prejudice.

Case 1:05-cv-01340-LJO-GSA Document 68 Filed 04/06/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

D. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that defendants Scribner, Andrews,

Schwarzenegger, Hickman, and Woodford’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, filed

October 30, 2006, is DENIED, with prejudice, and defendants Scribner, Andrews, Schwarzenegger,

Hickman, and Woodford shall file a response to plaintiff’s amended complaint within thirty (30)

days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01340-LJO-GSA Document 68 Filed 04/06/07 Page 6 of 6