Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05437/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05437-8/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL L. HUGHES,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERMAN, et. al., 

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5437 OWW SMS P

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND

COMPLAINT (Doc. 31.) 

 Michael L. Hughes (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On March 10, 2006, Plaintiff moved to Amend his Complaint. Plaintiff states that he

should be allowed to amend because the Defendants have “read into” the Complaint allegations

that were not made by the Plaintiff and thus, have caused the “Original Complaint to be offset

from its Original language.” (Motion at 2.) Plaintiff states that Defendants have also misstated

the record by contending that Defendant Sherman could not be held liable in his supervisory

capacity and that Plaintiff did not allege that he was suing Defendant Sherman in his

“supervisory capacity” but in his individual capacity. Thus, Plaintiff seeks to amend to

Case 1:04-cv-05437-OWW -SMS Document 33 Filed 03/21/06 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

“overcome the deficiency, if any exist.” Id. 

It appears from Plaintiff’s Motion, that Plaintiff misunderstands what has occurred in his

case. While it is true that the Court found cognizable claims and ordered service of the

Complaint on June 6, 2005, this does not preclude Defendants from making a Motion under Rule

12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim. Clearly this occurred with the filing of the Motion to

Dismiss which this Court recommended be denied in part and granted in part on December 15,

2005. 

In the Findings and Recommendations, the Court noted that Defendants had “read into”

the Complaint certain allegations that were not there. However, Defendants actions did not

change the Complaint and thus, an amendment to that extent is unnecessary. Defendants did

move to dismiss Defendant Sherman from the action on the basis that the Complaint did not state

a claim for relief. As noted above, the Court’s finding service of the Complaint appropriate does

not preclude Defendants from making such a Motion. The Motion served to have the Court

examine the Complaint more closely and upon that examination, the Court agreed that the

Complaint did not allege sufficient facts to keep Defendant Streeter in the action. Plaintiff states

he was not suing Defendant Sherman in his “supervisory capacity” but in his individual capacity

and thus, he seeks to amend to make that clear. Such an amendment, however, is unnecessary. 

Regardless of whether Plaintiff uses the words supervisory capacity in his Complaint, the facts

alleged make clear that the only way Plaintiff can hold Defendant Sherman liable is in his

capacity as a supervisory. The Complaint alleges that Defendant Sherman “supported his

subordinates unethical conduct after review of their actions. He collectively participated causing

him to suffer cruel punishment and mental distress.” (Complaint at 3.) These facts make clear

that Defendant Sherman was acting in his capacity as supervisor as he “supported” and

“reviewed” actions by his subordinates. Even disregarding the “supervisory” component of the

claim, the facts alleged in the Complaint do not state a cognizable claim that could be redressed

in a Section 1983 action as Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to have Defendant

Sherman not support or review actions of his subordinates. In other words, the facts alleged in

the Complaint are insufficient to state a cognizable claim against Defendant Sherman under any

Case 1:04-cv-05437-OWW -SMS Document 33 Filed 03/21/06 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

1

Plaintiff also argues that the Court’s Order granting and denying the Motion to Dismiss had no explanation.

However, he is incorrect. The explanation as to why the Motion should be granted in part and denied in part was

provided by this Court in the form of Findings and Recommendations. The Order Adopting makes clear that the

Court concurred with the Findings and thus, adopted them. 

3

theory, including one of supervisory liability. Thus, Plaintiff may not amend the Complaint to

again include a claim against Defendant Sherman using the same facts. 

As in the Findings and Recommendations, the Complaint does not allege facts sufficient

to state a cognizable claim for relief against Defendant Sherman and Plaintiff does not propose

facts that would be sufficient to state a cognizable claim against him. Accordingly, the Motion to

Amend the Complaint is DENIED.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05437-OWW -SMS Document 33 Filed 03/21/06 Page 3 of 3