referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)
How later courts described this case
- referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)
- holding that there is no 24 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 WILLIAM ROUSER, No. 2:22-CV-0032-TLN-DMC-P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
14 GAVIN NEWSOM, 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. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, ECF No. 13.
19 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
20 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
21 § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or
22 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
23 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,
24 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain
25 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This
26 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d
27 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the
28 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it
1 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege
2 with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the
3 claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is
4 impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague
5 and conclusory.
6
7 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
8 Plaintiff is a prisoner at Mule Creek State Prison, where the alleged violations
9 occurred. See ECF No.13 at 1. Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) Gavin Newsom,
10 Governor of California; (2) Joseph R. Wheeler, Deputy Attorney General; (3) Kathleen Allison,
11 Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; (4) Patrick Covello,
12 Warden; (5) M. Safonov, Protestant Chaplain; (6) Mohammed, Muslim Chaplain; (7) Jane or
13 John Doe, Rabbi; (8) John or Jane Do, Native; (9) Carrillo, Catholic Chaplain; (10) Felton,
14 Sargent; and (11) J. Eshelman, Community Resource Manager. Id.
15 In 2009, Plaintiff brought suit against the California Department of Corrections
16 and Rehabilitation (CDCR) for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
17 Act (RLUIPA) and First Amendment. See Rouser v. White, 630 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (E.D. Cal.
18 2009). In that case, the Court granted injunctive relief allowing Plaintiff to practice his Wiccan
19 Religion. Id. at 1203-04.
20 In this suit, Plaintiff again claims violations of the RLUIPA and First Amendment.
21 Id. at 5, 8. Plaintiff alleges the defendants are not following the terms of the settlement
22 agreement from the previous suit. Id. at 5.
23 Plaintiff claims that the Religious Review Committee, composed of Defendants
24 Safonov, Muhammad, Carrillo, the Rabbi, the Native American Chaplain, Felton, and Eshelman,
25 acted with malice, fraud, and oppression by denying Plaintiff items essential to practice Wicca.
26 See id. The Committee denied Plaintiff an altar, candles, incense, wood, and a fire pit— even
27 though Catholics and Jews were provided with those items. Id. The Committee told Plaintiff that
28 they were acting according to a memo from Warden Covello and Secretary Allison. Id. Plaintiff
1 alleges that Deputy Attorney General Wheeler told the Committee that they did not have to
2 follow RLUIPA or the court-ordered settlement agreement. Id. at 5-6.
3 Plaintiff “on numerous occasions” told Governor Newsom that his rights and the
4 court order were being violated. Id. at 6. Plaintiff alleges Newsom was deliberately indifferent
5 by not involving himself. Id.
6 Plaintiff claims that denial of a Wiccan chaplain violates Plaintiff’s First
7 Amendment rights of religious establishment. Id. at 8. Defendants Covello, Allison, Safonov,
8 Mohammed, the Rabbi, the Native American Chaplain, and Carrillo discriminated against
9 Plaintiff by denying him a Wiccan chaplain. Id. Plaintiff was denied the ability to practice his
10 religion, as he was not provided a spiritual advisor as other religions were provided. Id. at 8.
11 Plaintiff claims this is a violation of the judge’s order in Rouser v. White and the RLUIPA. Id.
12
13 II. DISCUSSION
14 Plaintiff presents cognizable claims against all defendants besides Governor
15 Newsom. As explained in the Court’s previous order, each defendant must have acted in
16 violation of the Constitution— supervisory liability is not cognizable for § 1983 claims. Plaintiff
17 was given leave to amend his claim against Newson to articulate Newsom’s direct involvement,
18 and Plaintiff’s amended complaint merely rearticulated Newsom was related only in his indirect
19 supervisory capacity. Because Plaintiff is unable to show how Newsom was directly involved,
20 Plaintiff’s claim against Newsom should be dismissed. In a separate order, the Court will allow
21 Plaintiff’s claims to proceed against the other defendants.
22 Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their
23 employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that there is no
24 respondeat superior liability under § 1983). A supervisor is only liable for the constitutional
25 violations of subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations. See id. The
26 Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a supervisory defendant can be liable based on
27 knowledge and acquiescence in a subordinate’s unconstitutional conduct because government
28 officials, regardless of their title, can only be held liable under § 1983 for his or her own conduct
1 and not the conduct of others. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). Supervisory
2 personnel who implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of
3 constitutional rights and the moving force behind a constitutional violation may, however, be
4 liable even where such personnel do not overtly participate in the offensive act. See Redman v.
5 Cnty of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc).
6 When a defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link between such
7 defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v.
8 Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir.
9 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of supervisory personnel in
10 civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th
11 Cir. 1982). “[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the
12 official’s own individual actions, has violated the constitution.” Iqbal, 662 U.S. at 676.
13 Plaintiff alleges that he notified Newsom of the violations. ECF No. 13 at 6.
14 Newsom did not involve himself, even though he could have. Id. Plaintiff does not allege
15 Newsom personally acted in violation of the Constitution, only that he could have stopped the
16 alleged violation due to his status as governor. See id. A supervisor is only liable for the
17 constitutional violations of subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations.
18 See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Because Newsom did not participate in
19 or direct the violations, he cannot be held liable. See id.
20 The Court previously granted Plaintiff the ability to amend his claims to articulate
21 how Newsom participated in or directed the violations. See ECF No. 12. Plaintiff was unable to
22 articulate a cognizable claim against Newsom, so his claims against Newsom should be
23 dismissed.
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
1 Il. CONCLUSION
2 Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be
3 || cured by amending the complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of
4 | the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
5 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiffs claims
6 || against Defendant Governor Newsom be dismissed with prejudice, and that Newsom be
7 || terminated as a defendant to this action.
8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
9 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days
10 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
11 || objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
12 | objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See
13 | Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
14
15 || Dated: September 1, 2023 = SS GC
16 DENNIS M. COTA
17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28