Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00898/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00898-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANELY SIMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0898 MCE EFB P

vs.

VEAL, et al.,

ORDER AND FINDINGS

Defendants. 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). 

 On July 9, 2007, the court found that plaintiff stated a claim against one defendant and

not others. The order explained the complaint’s deficiencies and gave plaintiff the opportunity

to file an amended complaint correcting these deficiencies. On August 6, 2007, plaintiff filed a

first amended complaint. The court has reviewed that complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A and, for the limited purposes of that section, finds that plaintiff has stated a claim

against D. Halverson for retaliation, against LeSaine for violations of the Eighth and Fourth

Amendment, and against Petrey for violations of the Eighth Amendment. For the following

reasons, the court finds that plaintiff fails to state a claim against defendants J. Pearson, N.

Case 2:07-cv-00898-KJM-EFB Document 15 Filed 10/24/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Grannis, S. Moreno, J. Spaulding, R. Anderson or M. Veal. 

Plaintiff alleges that J. Pearson, N. Grannis, S. Moreno, J. Spaulding, R. Anderson and

M. Veal, as supervisors and participants in the administrative appeals process “failed to take

remedial actions and in acquiescence, had and have a reckless callous indifference to the rights

of plaintiff and affirmed the actions of def’s [sic] Haverson, [sic] R. St. Germain, M. Taylor, D.

Silbaugh, [sic] J. Walker.” Comp., at 14-15. Plaintiff makes no specific allegations against R.

St. Germain, M. Taylor, J. Walker or J. Silbaugh.

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). The theory of

respondeat superior does not apply in cases brought under § 1983. Instead, 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 therefore fails to state a claim against R. St.

Germain, M. Taylor, J. Walker or J. Silbaugh.

Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for defendants Halverson, LeSaine and Petrey .

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff three USM-285 forms, one summons, an

instruction sheet and one copy of the August 6, 2007, pleading.

3. Within 30 days from service of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice

of Submission of Documents and submit it to the court with the completed summons and USM285 forms and four copies of the endorsed August 6, 2007, pleading.

4. Upon receipt of the necessary materials, the court will direct the United States

Marshal to serve defendants Halverson, LeSaine and Petrey pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Case 2:07-cv-00898-KJM-EFB Document 15 Filed 10/24/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Procedure 4 without payment of costs. 

Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that defendants J. Pearson, N. Grannis, S.

Moreno, J. Spaulding, R. Anderson, M. Veal, R. St. Germain, M. Taylor, J. Walker and J.

Silbaugh be dismissed from this action 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).

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: October 24, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00898-KJM-EFB Document 15 Filed 10/24/07 Page 3 of 4
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

STANLEY SIMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0898 MCE EFB P

vs.

M. VEAL, et al.,,

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order

filed :

 1 completed summons form

 3 completed forms USM-285 

 4 copies of the August 6, 2007 

 First Amended Complaint

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-00898-KJM-EFB Document 15 Filed 10/24/07 Page 4 of 4