holding that there is no 20 respondeat superior liability under § 1983
How later courts described this case
- holding that there is no 20 respondeat superior liability under § 1983
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 LOUIS IVESTER PEETS, No. 2:18-CV-2469-KJM-DMC
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
14 JERRY BROWN, JR., et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By separate order, this Court found Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts for his
19 claims related to every Defendant save for Jerry Brown to proceed past screening. The Court
20 noted this was because there were no facts that established Jerry Brown caused any of the
21 constitutional violations alleged by Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s theory of liability against Jerry Brown
22 was a far too attenuated theory of supervisory liability. Because no facts supported such a theory
23 of liability and because it does not seem Plaintiff can allege such facts, this Court recommends
24 dismissal of Jerry Brown as a defendant.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
1 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
2 Plaintiff has named 15 Defendants: (1) Jerry Brown Jr., (2) Scott Kernan, (3)
3 Kathleen Allison, (4) Roberty W. Fox, (5) Richard Townsend, (6) David Maldonado, (7) Thomas
4 Huntley, (8) James Appleberry, (9) Christopher Tileston, (10) Daniel Cueva, (11) J. Domiguez,
5 (12) M. Voong, (13) David Haley, (14) Maylene Boucher, (15) Paul Shleffar. Plaintiff raises four
6 claims: (1) Defendants violated his First Amendment right to free speech by retaliating against
7 him for complaining, ultimately chilling his speech; (2) Defendants violated his First Amendment
8 right to free exercise of religion by attempting to force him to work on the sabbath and giving him
9 repeated write ups for refusing to work on the sabbath; (3) Defendants violated the Religious
10 Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by harassing him or allowing him to be
11 harassed for exercising his religious right not to engage in work on the sabbath; (4) Defendants
12 violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection by discriminating against him on the
13 basis of his Jewish faith; (5) Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process
14 by issuing him write ups citing to a rule that does not exist, depriving him of fair notice, and
15 because even if the rule were corrected there would be insufficient evidence to support it.
16
17 II. ANALYSIS
18 Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their
19 employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that there is no
20 respondeat superior liability under § 1983). A supervisor is only liable for the constitutional
21 violations of subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations. See id. The
22 Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a supervisory defendant can be liable based on
23 knowledge and acquiescence in a subordinate’s unconstitutional conduct because government
24 officials, regardless of their title, can only be held liable under § 1983 for his or her own conduct
25 and not the conduct of others. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). Supervisory
26 personnel who implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of
27 constitutional rights and the moving force behind a constitutional violation may, however, be
28 liable even where such personnel do not overtly participate in the offensive act. See Redman v.
1 | Cnty of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc).
2 When a defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link between such
3 | defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v.
4 | Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir.
5 | 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of supervisory personnel in
6 | civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th
7 | Cir. 1982). “[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the
8 | official’s own individual actions, has violated the constitution.” Iqbal, 662 U.S. at 676.
9 There are no facts in the complaint indicating Jerry Brown engaged in any direct
10 | activity against Plaintiff resulting in the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights. Further,
11 | based on the allegations in the complaint there is no indication Jerry Brown was even aware
12 | Plaintiff was in prison. For these reasons, Plaintiff cannot establish Jerry Brown violated his
13 | constitutional rights and any attempt at amendment would likely be futile.
14
15 I. CONCLUSION
16 Based on the foregoing the undersigned recommends Plaintiff’s claims against
17 || Jerry Brown be DISMISSED.
18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
19 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days
20 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
21 | objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
22 | objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See
23 | Martinez v. YlIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
24
25 Dated: October 3, 2019 Sx<o_-
26 DENNIS M. COTA
7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
28