Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00996/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00996-3/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

JOHN LAPONTE, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0996 GEB CMK P

vs.

THOMAS L. CAREY, et al., 

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed July 26, 2006, plaintiff's complaint was

dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an amended

complaint.

In his third amended complaint, plaintiff asserts that he is being denied dental

care. He asserts that the denial of dental care has caused him to lose several teeth; caused him

severe pain; and has forced him to tie his front tooth to a “neighboring tooth” in order to keep it

from falling out. He names four defendants: Thomas L. Carey, the Warden; Alvara Traquina,

the Chief Medical Officer; R. Mcyntire, the Chief Dentist; and J. Deffenbaugh, the Dentist. The

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00996-GEB-CMK Document 15 Filed 11/02/06 Page 1 of 4
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

 third amended complaint states a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations of the amended complaint are proven, plaintiff has a

reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Carey is liable by virtue of his position as the

Warden of the prison. Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for

the actions of their employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)(citation

omitted). A supervisor is only liable for the constitutional violations of subordinates if the

supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew or the violations and failed to act to

prevent them. See id. When a defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link between

him and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley,

607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the

involvement of supervisory personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v.

Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, service is not appropriate for

Defendant Carey.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant J. Deffenbaugh denied him adequate dental care. 

He alleges that defendant Traquina and defendant R. Mcyntire were aware of this denial and did

nothing to remedy it. Accordingly, the court finds that service is appropriate for defendants

Deffenbaugh, Traquina, and Mcyntire. 

 The court will direct service on defendants Deffenbaugh, Traquina, and Mcyntire 

by the U.S. Marshal without pre-payment of costs. Plaintiff is informed, however, that this

action cannot proceed further until plaintiff complies with this order. Plaintiff is warned that

failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of the action. See Local Rule 11-110. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Deffenbaugh, Traquina,

and Mcyntire

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff three USM-285 forms, one

Case 2:05-cv-00996-GEB-CMK Document 15 Filed 11/02/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

summons, an instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed June 6, 2006.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1

above; and 

d. four copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed June 6, 2006. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

DATED: October 31, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00996-GEB-CMK Document 15 Filed 11/02/06 Page 3 of 4
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff, No. CIV 

vs.

 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-00996-GEB-CMK Document 15 Filed 11/02/06 Page 4 of 4