Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00569/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00569-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH R. HUSKEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAM AHLIN, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-00569-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS WAGONER, LINTZ, AND 

ROGERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, AND 

DISMISSING CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE

(Docs. 23 and 39)

Plaintiff Kenneth R. Huskey, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 12, 2012. This action is 

proceeding against Defendants Ahlin, Brown, Craig, Wagoner, Lintz, Rogers, and Young for 

failing to ensure that Plaintiff=s medical needs were addressed, in violation of the Due Process 

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff’s claim arises 

out of his conditions of confinement at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”) in Coalinga, California, 

where he is a patient.

On January 31, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations 

recommending that Defendants Wagoner, Lintz, and Rogers’ motion to dismiss be granted on the 

ground that they are not state actors. Plaintiff filed a timely Objection on February 18, 2014, and 

Defendants filed a timely response on February 28, 2014. Local Rule 304(b), (d). 

///

///

Case 1:12-cv-00569-AWI-SKO Document 46 Filed 03/06/14 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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. 

This action is proceeding against all named defendants for violation of Plaintiff’s 

constitutional right to adequate medical care. (Docs. 1, 7.) As set forth by the Magistrate Judge, 

Defendants Wagoner, Lintz, and Rogers, who are employed by a private advocacy group which 

contracts with the state, are not responsible for providing Plaintiff with medical care and they are 

not state actors, the latter of which is fatal to Plaintiff’s constitutional claim.1 

Furthermore, Plaintiff provides no authority for his apparent proposition that Disability 

Rights California was required to initiate suit to vindicate his rights and its failure to do so renders 

employees Wagoner, Lintz, and Rogers liable for the underlying violation of Plaintiff’s rights by 

CSH employees. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 10805(a)(C), 10807(a).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on January 31, 2014, is adopted in full; 

and

2. Defendants Wagoner, Lintz, and Rogers’ motion to dismiss, filed on August 9, 

2013, is GRANTED and they are dismissed from this action, with prejudice as to Plaintiff’s claim 

against them.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendants’ responses to his grievances suffices to establish state action is without merit, 

but in any event, Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the grievance system and/or his dissatisfaction with the responses he 

received provides no basis for liability under section 1983. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221, 125 S.Ct. 2384 

(2005); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Case 1:12-cv-00569-AWI-SKO Document 46 Filed 03/06/14 Page 2 of 2