Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06079/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06079-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Correctional Institution
Defendant
Willie Weaver
Plaintiff

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

WILLIE WEAVER,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 6079 LJO WMW P

vs. FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION

THIRD WATCH LIEUTENANT, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks

relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this

court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the June 8, 2005, amended complaint.

The amended complaint was filed in response to an order dismissing the

original complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff, an inmate in the

custody of the California Department of Corrections at Pelican Bay State

Prison, an, brings this civil rights action against an unnamed Lieutenant

and Sergeant employed by the Department of Corrections at the California

Correctional Institution at Tehachapi.

Plaintiff’s sole claim in this complaint is that defendants

subjected him to injury from the use of tear gas, and were indifferent to

Case 1:04-cv-06079-LJO -WMW Document 39 Filed 08/13/07 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

his reaction. Specifically, defendant used tear gas on inmates in a nearby

cell to remove them. Plaintiff advised defendants that he would suffer an

allergic reaction to the tear gas, and requested that he be moved down the

tier. Defendants ignored his request, and subjected him to the effects of

tear gas.

In the order dismissing the original complaint, Plaintiff was

advised that, though he adequately alleged facts that would, at the

minimum, state a claim for relief, he had not identified the individuals

responsible. The court can not order service upon unnamed defendants. 

Because plaintiff did not identify the individual defendants, the compliant

was dismissed. 

In the amended complaint before the Court, Plaintiff restates 

the allegations of the original complaint. Rather than specify what

individuals were involved, Plaintiff is even more vague. Plaintiff refers to

Lieutenants, Sergeants, and overseers. Plaintiff may not allege conduct

as to correctional staff in general. In order to state a claim for relief,

Plaintiff must specifically identify the individual defendants. Plaintiff has

failed to do so. T Court therefore recommends dismissal of this action for

failure to state a claim upon which the court could grant relief. See Noll v.

Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9 Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice th

of deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for failure to

state a claim).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action

be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

Case 1:04-cv-06079-LJO -WMW Document 39 Filed 08/13/07 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

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within twenty days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

waives all objections to the judge’s findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan,

158 F.3d 449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file objections within the th

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

j14hj0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06079-LJO -WMW Document 39 Filed 08/13/07 Page 3 of 3