Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01917/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01917-8/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS VILLEGAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01917-AWI-SKO PC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING

CERTAIN DEFENDANTS, AND REFERRING

MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO INITIATE SERVICE OF PROCESS

(Docs. 22 and 25)

Plaintiff Carlos Villegas, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 14, 2010. The matter was referred to a

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

OnOctober 11, 2012,theMagistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of

certain parties based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against them. Plaintiff filed a timely

Objection on November 5, 2012.

Plaintiff objects to the recommendation that Defendants Clark, Cate, and Sallade be

dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Clark was the Chief Medical

Officer and his personal knowledge of Plaintiff’s medical condition was demonstrated by his

signature on Plaintiff’s inmate appeals, and he knew or should have known that Plaintiff was not

being provided with sufficient medical care. (Doc. 26, Obj, ¶3.) Plaintiff contends that Defendants

Cate and Sallade held “executive, administrative, and/or supervisory positions overseeing”

healthcare, they were responsible for implementing “policies, practices and procedures” which led

1

Case 1:10-cv-01917-SKO Document 27 Filed 11/29/12 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

27

28

to the failure to adequately treat Plaintiff’s medical needs, and evidence of their “culpable action or

inaction may be obtained [through] discovery.” (Id., ¶5.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The Magistrate Judge

addressed Plaintiff’s allegations in detail and clearly explained why they fell short of supporting a

claim under section 1983 for violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

Defendants Clark, Cate, and Sallade may not be held liable for the violation of Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights under a theory of respondeat superior, and bare, unsupported allegations of

personal knowledge or of involvement at a policy-making level are insufficient to support a plausible

claim for relief under section 1983. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009);

Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of

Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.

2002). Prison administrators cannot willfully turn a blind eye to constitutional violations being

committed by subordinates and therefore, there are circumstances under which involvement in

responding to an inmate appeal may be sufficient to support a claim under section 1983. Jett v.

Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2006); accord Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 989 (9th Cir.

2012). Likewise, involvement in the creation or enforcement of policies which are the moving force

behind the constitutional violation at issue may support a claim under section 1983. Starr v. Baca,

652 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011); Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 914-15 (9th Cir. 2001);

Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446-47 (9th Cir. 1991); Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d

642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, however, Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations are not sufficient to

support a claim that Defendants Clark, Cate, and Sallade knowingly disregarded an excessive risk

of harm to Plaintiff’s health. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on October 11, 2012, is adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, filed on March 12,

2012, against Defendant Neubarth for violation of the Eighth Amendment;

2

Case 1:10-cv-01917-SKO Document 27 Filed 11/29/12 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

27

28

3. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Langlois, Dureza, Clark,

Hasadsri, Cate, Sallade, Adams, and Lopez are dismissed, with prejudice, for failure

to state a claim under section 1983; and

4. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to initiate service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 28, 2012 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

3

Case 1:10-cv-01917-SKO Document 27 Filed 11/29/12 Page 3 of 3