Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01246/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01246-5/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS HENDON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WITCHER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-01246-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 16)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff, Carlos Hendon (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to

a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On May 10, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that recommended the complaint be dismissed for

failure to state a claim. The Findings and Recommendations were

served on Plaintiff and contained notice to Plaintiff that any

objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed

within thirty (30) days. On June 6, 2007, Plaintiff filed

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.

Case 1:05-cv-01246-AWI -DLB Document 18 Filed 08/06/07 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The

objections do not provide a basis to not adopt the Findings and

Recommendations. 

In the objections Plaintiff contends that the amended

complaint states a claim and gives sufficient notice to

defendants under Rule 8's liberal pleading standard. The

complaint alleges that all Defendants had direct knowledge of the

unconstitutional conditions that Plaintiff was housed in or

promoted the policies that resulted in the unconstitutional

conditions. The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to

take appropriate action to remedy the unconstitutional

conditions. 

When dismissing the prior complaint, the Magistrate Judge

gave Plaintiff notice of the requirements for an Eighth Amendment

violation and notice that the Defendants had to be linked to the

violation. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) th

(if court determines that complaint fails to state claim, leave

to amend may be granted to extent that complaint’s deficiencies

can be cured); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9 Cir. th

1987) (prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies and

opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for failure to state a

claim). In the amended complaint, Plaintiff has not provided

Defendants with sufficient information to respond to the

complaint. The complaint does not state how the Defendants knew

Case 1:05-cv-01246-AWI -DLB Document 18 Filed 08/06/07 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

of the conditions, what policies Defendants promulgated, or what

Defendants could have done to change the conditions. The court

recognizes that 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. Swierkiewicz v.

Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). However, while detailed

allegations in a complaint are not required, a plaintiff must set

forth “the grounds of his entitlement to relief[,]” which

“requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic

recitation of the elements of a cause of action . . . .” Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)

(internal quotations and citations omitted). Plaintiff has

failed to do so.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 10, 2007,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED, as follows, for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted:

a. Plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims

are DISMISSED, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01246-AWI -DLB Document 18 Filed 08/06/07 Page 3 of 3