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

DAMON ALLGIRE, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S- 04 - 1680 MCE GGH P

vs.

WARDEN R. A. CASTRO, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. In a concurrently filed order, the undersigned has found the January 31, 2005 amended

complaint appropriate for service upon several defendants. As to defendants Schwarzenegger,

Hickman, Woodford and Runnels, plaintiff, who seeks both money damages and injunctive relief

for defendants’ alleged inadequate medical care of his broken left index finger in violation of the

Eighth Amendment, fails to specifically link these defendants to the constitutional deprivations

he suffered when medical treatment for his broken left index finger was delayed for almost two

years, causing him pain and discomfort and requiring that he ultimately undergo an extended

two-and-a-half- hour surgery. Amended Complaint, pp. 2-4. 

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

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

Case 2:04-cv-01680-MCE -GGH Document 9 Filed 06/17/05 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 1

 Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018 (1978).

2

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). Plaintiff’s claims for money damages against defendants Schwarzennegger,

Hickman. Woodford and Runnels should be dismissed.

As to his claims for injunctive relief, just as it is not necessary to allege Monell1

policy grounds when suing a state or municipal official in his or her official capacity for

injunctive relief related to a procedure of a state entity, Chaloux v. Killeen, 886 F.2d 247 (9th

Cir. 1989), it follows that it is not necessary to allege the personal involvement of a state official

when plaintiffs are attacking a state procedure on federal grounds that relates in some way to the

job duties of the named defendant. All that is required is that the complaint name an official who

Case 2:04-cv-01680-MCE -GGH Document 9 Filed 06/17/05 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

could appropriately respond to a court order on injunctive relief should one ever be issued. 

Harrington v. Grayson, 764 F. Supp. 464, 475-477 (E.D. Mich. 1991); Malik v. Tanner, 697 F.

Supp. 1294, 1304 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). (“Furthermore, a claim for injunctive relief, as opposed to

monetary relief, may be made on a theory of respondeat superior in a § 1983 action.”); Fox

Valley Reproductive Health Care v. Arft, 454 F. Supp. 784, 786 (E.D. Wis. 1978). See also,

Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779 (9th Cir. 1985), permitting an injunctive relief suit to

continue against an official’s successors despite objection that the successors had not personally

engaged in the same practice that had led to the suit. However, because a suit against an official

in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state, policy or procedure of the state must be at

issue in a claim for official capacity injunctive relief. Haber v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25, 112 S. Ct.

358, 361-62 (1991). To the extent that plaintiff intends to allege that he has been subjected to an

unconstitutional practice in the treatment of his injury, he has named defendant J. S. Woodford,

an appropriate official who can direct any follow-up medical treatment/therapy he seeks. 

Therefore, the court recommends dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for official capacity prospective

injunctive relief against defendants Schwarzennegger, Hickman, and Runnels.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants Schwarzennegger, Hickman, and Runnels be dismissed from this

action, and defendant J. S. Woodford be dismissed as a defendant in her individual capacity for

money damages; 

2. This action proceed against defendant Woodford in her official capacity only

as to plaintiff’s claims for prospective injunctive relief.

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, 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

Case 2:04-cv-01680-MCE -GGH Document 9 Filed 06/17/05 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

4

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

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

DATED: 6/17/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

allg1680.fr

Case 2:04-cv-01680-MCE -GGH Document 9 Filed 06/17/05 Page 4 of 4