Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00675/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00675-4/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

ROBERT FUENTES, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0675 FCD GGH P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On April 22, 2005, the court granted plaintiff thirty days to file an amended

complaint. Pending before the court is the amended complaint filed May 17, 2005. 

Named as defendants are Warden Knowles, Warden Kernan, J. Flint, B. Joseph,

G. Coleman, C. Mitchell, J. Turella, T. Zink and J. Arong. Plaintiff first alleges that on February

3, 2004, he was attacked by two other inmates while he was held in the Sacramento County

Superior Court tank “A.” Plaintiff suffered four stab wounds and cuts and bruises. 

Plaintiff alleges that he should not have been transported with these inmates

pursuant to prison regulations which require separation of inmates housed in the general

population and administrative segregation. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Joseph, the

transportation sergeant, disregarded these regulations when he transported plaintiff with these

inmates. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Flint, defendant Joseph’s supervisor, should have

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 15 Filed 08/11/05 Page 1 of 6
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

known that defendant Joseph’s practice of disregarding these regulations would result in a risk to

plaintiff’s security. The amended complaint states a colorable claim as to defendants Flint and

Joseph.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Knowles is liable for the attack because he was

responsible for the custody of all inmates under his charge. Plaintiff alleges that defendant

Knowles was directly responsible for ensuring that defendants Flint and Joseph properly

segregated inmates.

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or

omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which

complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the

actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named

defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed

constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862

(9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S.

941 (1979). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel

in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th

Cir. 1982).

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 15 Filed 08/11/05 Page 2 of 6
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

Plaintiff is basing the liability of defendant Knowles on a theory of respondeat

superior. A supervisor is liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor

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). Plaintiff does not allege that

defendant Knowles participated in the violations or actually knew of them. Accordingly, the

court will separately recommend dismissal of defendant Knowles.

Plaintiff next alleges that immediately after being attacked by the inmates in the

holding tank, defendants Joseph and Coleman entered the cell and used excessive force against

him. These allegations state a colorable claim against defendants Joseph and Coleman. 

Plaintiff alleges that after being attacked by the inmates and suffering four stab

wounds, defendant Joseph summoned defendant Arong, a Medical Technical Assistant (MTA)

rather than a doctor. It took defendant Arong 40-50 minutes to get to the jail from the prison in

Folsom. When defendant Arong arrived, plaintiff told him that he wanted to see a doctor rather

than an MTA. 

Following his return to the prison, plaintiff filed an emergency administrative

appeal seeking medical care. On June 16, 2004, defendant Zink, a registered nurse, told plaintiff

that she was seeing plaintiff to perform a medical triage rather than responding to his appeal. 

Defendant Zink denied plaintiff’s request to see a doctor. On June 18, 2004, plaintiff’s ankles

and wrists were x-rayed. On July 2, 2004, defendant Turella, a doctor, examined plaintiff. 

During the interview, plaintiff was in shackles which caused him pain. Defendant Turella told

plaintiff that he was not aware of the attack by the other inmates and prescribed muscle relaxers

and ordered x-rays. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 15 Filed 08/11/05 Page 3 of 6
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

4

Plaintiff filed an appeal requesting to be examined by a doctor other than

defendant Turella. On July 28, 2004, defendant Mitchell responded to the appeal, telling plaintiff

that he would grant his request and have Doctor Borges examine plaintiff. Plaintiff apparently

was never examined by Doctor Borges. 

On March 14, 2005, plaintiff requested medical care for shoulder and back paid

and headaches, which he attributed to injuries suffered during the attack. 

Plaintiff has stated colorable claims for inadequate medical care against

defendants Joseph, Arong, Zink, Mitchell and Turella. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Kernan is

liable for his inadequate medical care because she became the Warden near the end of 2004. 

Plaintiff is basing the liability of defendant Kernan on the theory of respondeat superior. 

Accordingly, the court will separately recommend dismissal of this claim against defendant

Kernan. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Flint, Joseph, Coleman,

Mitchell, Turella, Zink and Arong.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff 7 USM-285 forms, one summons,

an instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed May 17, 2005.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 3

above; and 

d. Eight copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed May 17, 2005. 

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 15 Filed 08/11/05 Page 4 of 6
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

5

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States 

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

DATED: 8/10/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

fuent675.ame UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 15 Filed 08/11/05 Page 5 of 6
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

ROBERT FUENTES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0675 FCD GGH P

vs.

MIKES KNOWLES, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

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

order filed :

 1 completed summons form

 7 completed USM-285 forms

 8 copies of the 

 Complaint/Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-00675-FCD-GGH Document 15 Filed 08/11/05 Page 6 of 6