Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01051/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01051-7/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 

MICHAEL LUCIEN GARCIA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-01051-KJM-CKD P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On July 13, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 

served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the 

findings and recommendations. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 

Plaintiff argues defendants Allision and Lynch should not be removed from the case 

because they are partly responsible for defendant Kurgan’s actions. Objs., ECF No. 28. 

Case 2:22-cv-01051-DC-CKD Document 31 Filed 08/28/23 Page 1 of 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 

2 

However, as the magistrate judge explained, F. & R. at 2–3, ECF No. 24, “[t]here is no 

respondeat superior liability under section 1983.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 

1989). As the magistrate judge concluded, plaintiff cannot state a claim against defendants 

Allison and Lynch based on their supervisory capacities alone. See F. & R. at 3. A supervisor 

can be liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates only “if the supervisor participated 

in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor, 

880 F.2d at 1045. Here, plaintiff’s complaint does not include any such allegations. 

Plaintiff also argues his slip and fall claim was not screened and requests it to be screened. 

See Objs. at 2. However, the magistrate judge already addressed the slip and fall claim and 

correctly concluded plaintiff’s allegations do not state a claim for deliberate indifference under 

the Eighth Amendment. F. & R. at 3. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 13, 2023, are adopted in full. 

 2. Defendants Allison and Lynch are dismissed from this action without leave to amend. 

 3. The slip-and-fall allegations and the false report claim against defendant Kurgan are 

dismissed without further leave to amend for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. 

 4. This case is proceeding solely on the Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against 

defendant Kurgan. 

 5. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 

DATED: August 25, 2023. 

Case 2:22-cv-01051-DC-CKD Document 31 Filed 08/28/23 Page 2 of 2