Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00695/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00695-11/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

Plaintiff, King Mwasi, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which he filed on April 24, 2014. 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 July 16, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”)

which was served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that Objections to the F&R were to be 

filed within thirty days. Plaintiff requested and received multiple extensions of time and 

ultimately filed objections on January 28, 2015. On February 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to 

add an exhibit which had inadvertently not been attached to his objections; this motion is granted. 

Local Rule 304(b), (d). 

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 F&R to 

generally be supported by the record and by proper analysis. In part, the F&R concludes that there 

are no viable claims alleged against Sgt. Holland. The F&R found, however, that an Eighth 

KING MWASI,

Plaintiff

v.

CORCORAN STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-695 AWI JLT 

ORDER ON FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND 

DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS

(Doc. Nos. 29, 32, 41)

Case 1:13-cv-00695-DAD-JLT Document 43 Filed 04/14/15 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

2

Amendment conditions of confinement claim was stated against Defendants Gomez, Cordova, and 

Torres based on conduct that prevented Plaintiff from receiving meals. See Doc. No. 32 at 14:4-

16. The Paragraph in the Second Amended Complaint that includes allegations of “meal 

interference” also alleges that Sgt. Holland was made aware of the pattern of conduct of Gomez, 

Cordova, and Torres through letters and 602’s, yet Sgt. Holland did nothing. See Second 

Amended Complaint ¶ 82. A supervisor can be liable for his own culpable acts of inter alia

refusing to terminate a series of acts by others that the supervisor knew or should have known 

would cause a constitutional violation. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Paragraph 82 can reasonable be read as alleging that Sgt. Holland knew of Gomez, Cordova, and 

Torres’s on-going actions with respect to Plaintiff’s meals, but did nothing about it. This indicates 

culpable conduct by Sgt. Holland. See id.; Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Shabazz v. Giurbino, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121037, *10-*11 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2014); Adler v. 

Sullivan, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6920, *16 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2011); cf. Perez v. Beard, 2015 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40836, *8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2015); Himes v. Gipson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

125615, *11-*12 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2013). Accordingly, the Court will permit Plaintiff to 

proceed on an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim (permitting interference with 

Plaintiff’s meals) against Sgt. Holland. 

In all other respects, the Court agrees with the F&R and will adopt it.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on July 16, 2014, is ADOPTED 

as discussed above; 

2. This action for damages shall proceed on Plaintiff's Second Amended 

Complaint on the following claims:

a. against Defendants Dr. Mahoney, Dr. Blanchard, Urbano LCSW, 

and Doe 9 for deliberate indifference of Plaintiff's serious medical 

needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 

b. against Defendant Guards Cordova, Torres, and J. Gomez for 

excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 

Case 1:13-cv-00695-DAD-JLT Document 43 Filed 04/14/15 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

c. against Defendant Guards Cordova, Torres, J. Gomez, and Sgt. 

Holland regarding the conditions of confinement (i.e. “interference 

with meals”) in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

c. against Dr. Nguyen in his official capacity for violation of Plaintiff's 

rights under the ADA; 

3. All other claims and Defendants are dismissed; and 

4. The matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for service proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00695-DAD-JLT Document 43 Filed 04/14/15 Page 3 of 3