Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00390/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00390-2/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

JAMES OLIVER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0390 MCE EFB P

vs.

TOM CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel prosecuting this civil rights action in forma

pauperis. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The case was referred to this court by

Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and, for the

following reasons, finds it fails to state a claim for relief.

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege an identified defendant

deprived plaintiff of a right secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States while

acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). To state a claim

defendants provided constitutionally inadequate medical care, plaintiff must allege acts or

omissions evidencing defendants knew of and disregarded plaintiff’s serious medical needs. 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).

Case 2:06-cv-00390-MCE -EFB Document 13 Filed 01/17/07 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

2

Neither negligence on the part of defendants nor plaintiff’s general disagreement with the

treatment he received suffices to state a claim. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Hutchinson v. United

States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 331 (9th Cir.

1996). A supervisor is liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if he participated in

or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them, Taylor v.

List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989), or if he implemented a policy so deficient that the

policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and is the moving force of the constitutional

violation, Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir.1989). 

Plaintiff alleges the following: (1) defendant Noriega twice in four months scheduled

plaintiff for surgery to mend a torn tendon, but failed to complete the paperwork necessary to

ensure plaintiff actually received the surgery; (2) defendant Mahmoud prescribed pain

medication for plaintiff’s torn tendon and recommended that plaintiff see an orthopedic

specialist, but failed to complete the paperwork necessary to ensure the referral; (3) defendants

Soloman and Thor reviewed plaintiff’s grievance about the delay in surgery but did not intervene

to ensure that plaintiff promptly receive the recommended surgery.

Plaintiff’s allegations against defendants Noriega and Mahmoud amount to no more than

negligence. Without allegations that their subordinates violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights,

defendants Soloman and Thor cannot be responsible for such violations. Furthermore, the

allegations are insufficient to state a claim that Soloman and Thor are subject to liability in

accordance with Hansen.

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s

failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1128

(9th Cir. 2000) (indigent prisoner proceeding without counsel must be given leave to file

amended complaint unless the court can rule out any possibility that the plaintiff could state a

claim).

////

Case 2:06-cv-00390-MCE -EFB Document 13 Filed 01/17/07 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 twenty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 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. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: January 17, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00390-MCE -EFB Document 13 Filed 01/17/07 Page 3 of 3