Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03328/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03328-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
DeLeon
Defendant
Dustin Freitas
Plaintiff
James Walker
Defendant

Document Text:

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

DUSTIN FREITAS, No. CIV S-09-3328-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

JAMES WALKER, et. al. 

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. Pending before the

court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1).

On April 27, 2010, the court issued an order providing Plaintiff an opportunity to

file an amended complaint in order to cure the defects identified in Plaintiff’s complaint. 

Specifically, the court informed Plaintiff that his complaint, 

read broadly and liberally as the court must, . . . may be sufficient

to state a claim of excessive force against defendant Deleon. 

However, Plaintiff makes no mention of defendant Walker, or how

he allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The court

notes defendant Walker is the warden of the prison. As such,

Case 2:09-cv-03328-CMK Document 13 Filed 06/02/10 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

Plaintiff may be attempting to impose liability against the warden

simply based on his supervisory position. However, if that is

Plaintiff’s intention, it is insufficient. 

The court then informed Plaintiff that

supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the

actions of their employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,

1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that there is no respondeat superior

liability under § 1983). A supervisor is only liable for the

constitutional violations of subordinates if the supervisor

participated in or directed the violations. See id. The Supreme

Court has rejected the notion that a supervisory defendant can be

liable based on knowledge and acquiescence in a subordinate’s

unconstitutional conduct because government officials, regardless

of their title, can only be held liable under § 1983 for his or her

own conduct and not the conduct of others. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). When a defendant holds a

supervisory position, the causal link between such defendant 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). Vague and conclusory

allegations concerning the involvement of supervisory personnel in

civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). “[A] plaintiff must

plead that each Government-official defendant, through the

official’s own individual actions, has violated the constitution.” 

Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948.

Plaintiff was therefore provided an opportunity to file an amended complaint

which included allegations related to defendant Walker’s personal involvement in his alleged

constitutional violations. Plaintiff, however, has not filed an amended complaint within the time

provided.

Accordingly, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, within 30 days of the date of

this order, why defendant Walker should not be dismissed from this action for failure to state a

claim. Plaintiff is warned that failure to respond to this order may result in dismissal of the

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:09-cv-03328-CMK Document 13 Filed 06/02/10 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

action for the reasons outlined above, as well as for failure to prosecute and comply with court

rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

DATED: June 1, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-03328-CMK Document 13 Filed 06/02/10 Page 3 of 3