Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02856/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02856-4/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

BYRON EUGENE JOHNSON, No. CIV S-06-2856-WBS-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

R. COX, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 23, 2007, this court issued a order which stated that, taken in the

light most favorable to plaintiff, his amended complaint stated a cognizable claim against

defendants James, Cox and Roche, and found service to be appropriate for these three

defendants. However, plaintiff did not state a cognizable claim against defendants Woodford or

Runnels as the only allegations for constitutional violations were based on supervisory liability,

and therefore service was not proper for these two defendants. The court now recommends

dismissal of the supervisory defendants.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-02856-WBS-CMK Document 18 Filed 08/16/07 Page 1 of 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

The Clerk of the Court should also be directed to update the docket to reflect R. 1

Cox is the lead defendant

2

Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of

their employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that there is

no respondeat superior liability under § 1983). A supervisor is only liable for the constitutional

violations of subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or had

actual knowledge of 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);

Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). 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).

Plaintiff’s allegations against defendants Woodford and Runnels were that they

failed to properly supervise employees and ensure that plaintiff received medical care. As stated

in this court’s previous order and above, these allegations are insufficient to state a cognizable

claim based on supervisory liability. Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies

identified herein can be cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to

amend prior to dismissal of these defendants. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be

dismissed, without leave to amend, as against defendants Woodford and Runnels only and that

the Clerk of the Court be directed to terminate Woodford and Runnels as defendants to this

action. This action should proceed only against defendants James, Cox and Roche, who have 1

answered.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-02856-WBS-CMK Document 18 Filed 08/16/07 Page 2 of 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

3

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: August 15, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02856-WBS-CMK Document 18 Filed 08/16/07 Page 3 of 3