Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01422/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01422-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS HOLLIDAY, No. CIV S-07-1422-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

D.K. SISTO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1), filed on July 18,

2007.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if fails to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). As discussed in more detail in

the order dated October 1, 2007 (Doc. 6), plaintiff’s complaint names as a defendant Warden DK

Sisto. The basis for plaintiff’s claims against Warden Sisto arise from the defendant’s

supervisorial role. Plaintiff fails to allege an actual connection or link between the actions of

Case 2:07-cv-01422-CMK Document 8 Filed 12/03/07 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

defendant Sisto and the alleged constitutional deprivations. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs.,

436 U.S. 658 (1978). Plaintiff fails to set forth specific facts as to what defendant Sisto’s role

was in the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.

1988). Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their

employees, unless they participated in or had actual knowledge of the violations and failed to

prevent them. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th cir. 1989). Plaintiff was provided an

opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure these deficiencies. However, no amended

complaint was filed within the time provided. 

Based on the foregoing, and the reasons set forth in the October 1, 2007 order, the

undersigned recommends that defendant Sisto be dismissed from this action and that the action

proceed against defendants Traquina and Naka only. 

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: November 30, 2007

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-01422-CMK Document 8 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 2