Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01082/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01082-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL TENORE,

Plaintiff, No. 2:11-cv-1082 WBS CKD P

vs.

NATHANAEL GOODGAME, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On September 28, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, including plaintiff’s reply docketed on October 9, 2012 (Dkt. No. 28), the court finds

the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The

1

Case 2:11-cv-01082-WBS-CKD Document 31 Filed 11/27/12 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

court addresses plaintiff’s objections as follows: 

The magistrate judge found that plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint failed to

state a claim against Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP) Wardens Subia and Martel because

supervisory defendants are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their employees

under a theory of respondeat superior. (Dkt. No. 27 at 5.) In his objections, plaintiff asserts that

in the FAC he pleads a “systematic failure” of the MCSP medical department, and so should be

allowed to proceed against Wardens Subia and Martel. (Dkt. No. 29 at 3-4.) However, plaintiff

cannot obtain equitable relief for systemic problems in prison medical services as covered by the

remedial order in the Plata class action.1 A plaintiff who is a member of a class action for

equitable relief from prison conditions may not maintain a separate, individual suit for equitable

relief involving the same subject matter of the class action. See Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890,

892–93 (9th Cir.1979). A number of district courts have concluded that an individual class

member may proceed with a separate action for equitable or injunctive relief that is specific to

his medical needs and the circumstances of his incarceration, rather than the broad, systemic

relief targeted by those actions. See Gonzalez v. Zika, 2012 WL 4466584, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept.

26, 2012) (collecting cases). Here, however, plaintiff purports to allege widespread problems

with medical treatment at MCSP and seeks the relief of “Federal and State monitoring and

oversight, as well as auditing the entire health care delivery system at [MCSP]” on behalf of a

class of inmates. (Dkt. No. 22 (FAC) at ¶ 77.) Plaintiff is precluded from bringing such claims

by the Plata litigation. Thus the claims against Subia and Martel are properly dismissed.

\\\\\

1

 Plata v. Schwarzenegger, No. C–01–1351 TEH (N.D.Cal. 2001), a class action,

concerns the constitutional adequacy of CDCR’s inmate medical health care. The Plata class

consists of all prisoners in the custody of the CDCR with serious medical needs. In 2011, the

United States Supreme Court upheld the decision of a Ninth Circuit panel in Plata, aff'd in part,

603 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2010), that identified overcrowding as the primary cause of the

inadequacies in the mental and medical health care in prison and issued a remedial order

requiring California to reduce the prison population to 137.5% of the prisons’ design capacity

within two years.

2

Case 2:11-cv-01082-WBS-CKD Document 31 Filed 11/27/12 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

Plaintiff also asserts that, insofar as he seeks equitable relief under state law, he

need not allege compliance with the California Tort Claims Act.2 (Dkt. No. 29 at 3-4.) 

However, for the reasons discussed above, plaintiff’s claims for systemic equitable relief must be

dismissed. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 28, 2012, are adopted in

full; and

2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Simmons, Neuner, Subia, Martel and the

John Doe defendants are dismissed with prejudice. Additionally, all claims except the deliberate

indifference claims against defendants Goodgame, Tseng, Heatley, Heffner and Smith

concerning medical treatment for scabies are dismissed with prejudice.

DATED: November 26, 2012

/teno1082.805

2

 Injunctive and declaratory relief is exempt from the CTCA. See Qwest Communications

Corp. v. City of Berkeley, 146 F.Supp.2d 1081, 1090-91 (N.D. Cal. 2001).

3

Case 2:11-cv-01082-WBS-CKD Document 31 Filed 11/27/12 Page 3 of 3