Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00382/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00382-1/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

Jack Daniels

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0382 LKK CMK P

vs.

Latimore, et. al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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 February 11, 2005, plaintiff's first amended

complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Currently before the court is

plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on June 24, 2005. 

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 it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Case 2:04-cv-00382-LKK -CMK Document 11 Filed 12/07/05 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

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are

satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds

upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff

must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which

support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. 

I. Background

Plaintiff states in his second amended complaint that he has a valid prescription

for HIV medication. Plaintiff alleges that, on at least three occasions, defendant Latimore

refused to give plaintiff his HIV medications. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Tom Donahue,

Dr. Anderson, Dr. Bick, Dr. Nadim K. Khoury, Ken Allen, N. Grannis and Warden Teresa A.

Schwartz are liable in this action because they “upheld and affirmed defendant Latimore’s

actions through the appeals process and personally involved themselves (by tacitly approving the

action)...” 

II. Discussion

Plaintiff’s complaint against defendants Tom Donahue, Dr. Anderson, Dr. Bick,

Dr. Nadim K. Khoury, Ken Allen, N. Grannis and Warden Teresa A. Schwartz is deficient

because it fails to show personal participation by the defendants the alleged denial of plaintiff’s

rights. 

A plaintiff must connect the named defendants clearly with the claimed denial of

his rights. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 843 (1994) (official’s liability for

deliberate indifference to assault requires that official know of and disregard an “excessive

risk”); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“liability under section 1983 arises

only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant (citation omitted) . . . [t]here is

no respondeat superior liability under section 1983.”); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.3d 740, 743-44

(9 Cir. 1978) (discussing “requisite causal connection” in section 1983 cases between named th

Case 2:04-cv-00382-LKK -CMK Document 11 Filed 12/07/05 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

defendant and claimed injury); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 1998),

cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 (1999) ("A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that

show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights."). The

only personal involvement of defendants Tom Donahue, Dr. Anderson, Dr. Bick, Dr. Nadim K.

Khoury, Ken Allen, N. Grannis and Warden Teresa A. Schwartz that plaintiff can show is that

“they tacitly approv[ed] of [defendant Latimore’s actions],” apparently by denying plaintiff’s

grievances. This is does not establish the direct personal involvement required in a Section 1983

action. See Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978.) 

Plaintiff has had two previous chances to amend the deficiencies in his complaint. 

 Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be cured by

amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to another chance to amend prior to dismissal of

the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-00382-LKK -CMK Document 11 Filed 12/07/05 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

By separate order, the court found that plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against 1

defendant Latimore. 

4

Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s complaint

against defendants Tom Donahue, Dr. Anderson, Dr. Bick, Dr. Nadim K. Khoury, Ken Allen, N.

Grannis and Warden Teresa A. Schwartz be dismissed. 

1

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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 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: December 5, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00382-LKK -CMK Document 11 Filed 12/07/05 Page 4 of 4