Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02216/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02216-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY J. HANNA,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER LITTLE,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02216-HSG (PR) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 33, 34

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility, filed this pro se civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff and officials at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”), where he 

was previously incarcerated. Plaintiff alleges that SQSP Correctional Officer Little informed 

another inmate that plaintiff is a sex offender, thereby exposing plaintiff to potential attack. On 

May 13, 2015, the Court screened plaintiff’s third amended complaint, found that it stated a 

cognizable Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to safety as against Officer Little, 

and ordered him served. The Court, in the same order, dismissed plaintiff’s claim for 

supervisorial liability against John Does 1-5, for failure to state a claim. Now before the Court 

are: (1) plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of that portion of the Court’s May 13, 2015 order 

dismissing John Does 1-5; and (2) plaintiff’s motion to compel.

//

//

Case 4:14-cv-02216-HSG Document 38 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that portion of the Court’s May 13, 2015 dismissing John 

Does 1-5 for failure to state a supervisorial liability claim. Plaintiff asserts that he is still in the 

process of trying to obtain reports relating to the incident involving Officer Little, including 

reports containing information about Officer Little’s chain of command. 

The motion for reconsideration is DENIED as unnecessary. Although the Court dismissed 

the supervisory liability claims against John Does 1-5, plaintiff will not be foreclosed from later 

asserting supervisory liability claims. If plaintiff discovers the names of individuals he believes to 

be liable as Officer Little’s supervisors, he may seek leave to amend his complaint to add them as 

defendants. Plaintiff is reminded that a supervisor is not liable merely because the supervisor is 

responsible, in general terms, for the actions of another. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 680-81 (9th Cir. 

1984). A supervisor may be liable only on a showing of (1) personal involvement in the 

constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful 

conduct and the constitutional violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 

2012). 

B. Motion to Compel

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the Litigation Officer and Appeals Coordinator at 

SQSP to produce documents relating to the incident involving Officer Little. At this point, Officer 

Little still has not been served. He is no longer employed at SQSP, and the Court is awaiting a 

response from the CDCR as to whether it has a forwarding address for him. The Court therefore

lacks personal jurisdiction over anyone who could be ordered to provide the information that 

plaintiff requests. Accordingly, the motion to compel is DENIED. Denial is without prejudice to 

re-filing if and when Officer Little is served. Plaintiff is reminded that he must engage in good 

faith efforts to meet-and-confer to try to resolve his discovery disputes before seeking an order 

compelling discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37-1(a).

 If plaintiff believes that prison policies are not being adhered to, his remedy is to seek 

Case 4:14-cv-02216-HSG Document 38 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

enforcement of the policies in administrative grievances. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED as unnecessary.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 33 and 34.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

8/10/2015

Case 4:14-cv-02216-HSG Document 38 Filed 08/10/15 Page 3 of 3