Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00996/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00996-6/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

Defendants Deffenbaugh and Tranquina have appeared by way of their answer

1

filed on January 31, 2007. Defendant McIntyre has not been served.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LAPONTE, No. CIV S-05-0996-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

J. DEFFENBAUGH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s third amended complaint which names

the following four defendants: Carey, Traquina, McIntyre, and Deffenbaugh. On November 11,

2006, the court issued an order determining that service of the third amended complaint was

appropriate for defendants Traquina, McIntyre, and Deffenbaugh. 

1

Service was not deemed appropriate for defendant Carey because plaintiff’s

vague and conclusory allegations failed to allege supervisory liability. Although the court

advised plaintiff of the appropriate standards for alleging the liability of supervisory defendants,

such as defendant Carey, plaintiff neither objected to the court’s November 11, 2006, order nor

sought to amend the complaint to state further allegations against defendant Carey. Indeed, a

Case 2:05-cv-00996-GEB-CMK Document 26 Filed 06/04/07 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

2

further review of the third amended complaint reveals that the allegations against defendant

Carey are based solely on his role as prison warden, and not because of any personal

involvement or knowledge of the alleged violations by other defendants. Plaintiff alleges:

As the defendant(s) in this action as they are acting under the color of state

law to deny inmate’s dental care at (CSP) Solano and have been doing to

why’ll under the direct service of the Costodian of the Prison: Mr.

Thomas L. Carey/Warden. (SIC, emphasis in original). 

The factual allegations in the complaint relate to those individuals who either directly

participated in plaintiff’s dental treatment or had direct knowledge of plaintiff’s dental problems. 

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be

cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of 

defendant Carey. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that defendant Carey be

dismissed without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” 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: June 4, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00996-GEB-CMK Document 26 Filed 06/04/07 Page 2 of 2