Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20090219_0002701.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-07-26 22:54:26
Document Index: 183634632

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 636', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

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 first amended complaint (Doc. 26) and plaintiff's response (Doc. 35) to the court's December 24, 2008, order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed.
As in his original complaint, plaintiff names the following as defendants:
DuBose, Hasimoto, Williams, Tucker, and Martel. The court has summarized plaintiff's factual allegations in prior orders and will not do so again here. Plaintiff's allegations do not give rise to a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. In the December 24, 2008, order to show cause, the court outlined the defects in plaintiff's allegations as follows:
As to defendant Hasimoto, plaintiff alleges that he did not acknowledge or treat defendant DuBose's ear. However, plaintiff has not alleged that he presented to defendant Hasimoto with any serious medical condition. Rather, he specifically states that there was some dried blood in the left ear canal. This indicates that there was no emergency problem with the left ear, such as active bleeding. Further, plaintiff states that Dr. DuBose stopped the procedure on the left ear before he "went too far." Thus, based on plaintiff's allegations, any problem with his left ear was not serious such that defendant Hasimoto can be said to have ignored any serious medical need.
As to defendant Williams, plaintiff alleges that his denial of his inmate grievance was incorrect under state law. Because § 1983 is designed to redress constitutional violations, claims based on violations of state law are not cognizable under § 1983. Further, prisoners have no stand-alone due process right to the administrative grievance process. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that there is no liberty interest entitling inmates to a specific grievance process). Therefore, plaintiff cannot state a claim against defendant Williams solely based on denial of his inmate grievance.
Finally, as to defendant Martel, plaintiff states that he is responsible solely based on his role as prison warden. Notably, plaintiff does not allege any personal involvement or actual knowledge on the part of defendant Martel. 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, or had actual knowledge of the violations and failed to act to prevent them. See id. When a defendant holds a supervisory 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). 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).
Plaintiff has not cured any of these problems in the amended complaint. Specifically, he continues to claim that defendants DuBose, Tucker, and Hasimoto are liable for their allegedly negligent conduct with respect to his ear surgery. As to defendants Tucker and Hasimoto in particular, they cannot be held liable for alleged deliberate indifference because plaintiff specifically states that they both provided treatment. While plaintiff may feel that their treatment was inadequate, such a claim is not cognizable ...