Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02898/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02898-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EZEQUIEL ROMO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.

Defendant.

No. 2:11-cv-2898 GEB DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with an action for alleged civil rights violations 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 29, 2014, the court issued findings and 

recommendations granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. (See Doc. 

No. 53.) On September 11, 2014, defendants filed a request for clarification of the findings and 

recommendations. (Doc. No. 54.) Therein, defendants suggest that the court intended to dismiss 

defendants J. Baker, Williams, Holstrom and Walker completely from the action, but, they argue, 

the language of the court’s recommendation indicating that the Eighth Amendment conditions-ofconfinement claim is viable as to all defendants is inconsistent with that intention. They seek 

clarification of that apparent inconsistency. They further request additional time in which to file 

formal objections to the findings and recommendations in the event the court states that defendant 

/////

/////

Case 2:11-cv-02898-GEB-DB Document 55 Filed 09/16/14 Page 1 of 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

2

J. Baker, Williams, Holstrom and Walker should remain as defendants to the conditions-ofconfinement claim.1

The defendants are correct that the undersigned intended to recommend that J. Baker, 

Williams, Holstrom and Walker should be dismissed completely from this action, pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendants J. Baker, Williams and Holstrom are 

named in the complaint as officers involved in the inmate appeals process, which the court found 

could not be the basis for any viable civil rights claim in this case. (See Fifth Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 21) at 6, ¶¶ 20-22; Findings and Recommendations (Doc. No. 53) at 5-6.) 

Insofar as they are identified solely with plaintiff’s administrative appeals process, it is not 

plausible that defendants J. Baker, Williams and Holstrom could be liable for any other claim 

alleged in the operative complaint. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 

(2007) (holding that a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility); 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff 

pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 

liable for the misconduct alleged.”) Likewise, the court found defendant Walker, the warden at 

the prison where the events relevant to this action occurred, could not be liable on a theory of 

failure to train or supervise and, further, could not be liable on a theory of respondeat superior on 

any other claim. (Id. at 6-7.) Therefore defendant Walker should be dismissed as a defendant in

this action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations of August 29, 2014 (Doc. No. 53) are amended 

as follows:

a. Paragraph 6 of the Recommendations, page 24, is amended to read, “The court 

should grant the motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim for unconstitutional conditions 

of confinement as to defendants J. Baker, Williams, Holstrom and Walker. As to all other 

 

1 Defendants represent that they “do not intend to object to any . . . portion of the findings and 

recommendations” other than the status of defendants J. Baker, Williams, Holstrom and Walker

in this case. (Request for Clarification (Doc. No. 54) at 3.) 

Case 2:11-cv-02898-GEB-DB Document 55 Filed 09/16/14 Page 2 of 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

3

defendants, the motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim for unconstitutional conditions of 

confinement should be denied.” 

b. The court adds Paragraph 7 to the Recommendations, which reads, “The court 

should grant the motion to dismiss as to all claims based on the processing or review of plaintiff’s 

underlying administrative inmate appeals.”

c. The court adds Paragraph 8 to the Recommendations, which reads, 

“Defendants J. Baker, Williams, Holstrom and Walker should be dismissed from this action.”

2. The Findings and Recommendations of August 29, 2014, remain otherwise 

unamended.

3. Defendants’ request for an extension of time (Doc. No. 54) in which to file objections 

to the Findings and Recommendations of August 29, 2014, is denied as having been rendered 

moot by this clarification.

4. Plaintiff has fourteen days from the date of this order in which to file objections, if 

any, to the amended recommendations listed in Paragraph 1 of this Order. Failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: September 15, 2014

hm

romo.2898.f&r.amend

Case 2:11-cv-02898-GEB-DB Document 55 Filed 09/16/14 Page 3 of 3