The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
DANIEL ALVARADO, Case No. 6:20-cv-01114-MK
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
vs.
GOVERNOR KATE BROWN;
COLLETTE PETERS; NP MORIAM
BALOGUN; LT. MULLENS; RN MAKEY;
SGT. REDDING,
Defendants.
AIKEN, District Judge:
United States Magistrate Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai issued Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 10) in this case on October 26, 2020. In the F&R,
Judge Kasubhai recommended that plaintiff’s claims against Governor Brown and
Director Peters be dismissed. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Plaintiff filed timely objections. Doc. 13. Accordingly, the Court must “make
a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
Plaintiff objects to Judge Kasubhai’s conclusion that the Amended Complaint
fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Governor Brown and Director
Peters because it fails to identify either defendant’s personal involvement in a
deprivation of plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff correctly observes that supervisors “need
not be ‘directly and personally involved in the same way as are the individual officers
who are inflicting constitutional injury.” Objections at 2 (quoting Larez v. City of Los
Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 645 (9th Cir. 1991). A supervisor may also be liable under
§ 1983 for the acts of her subordinates “if there exists . . . a sufficient causal
connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional
violation.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011). As plaintiff notes, and
Judge Kasubhai observed in his Order to Amend, a plaintiff can establish a causal
connection by alleging that a supervisor “failed to act or improperly acted in the
training, supervision, or control of his subordinates”; “acquiesc[ed] in the
constitutional deprivation”; or engaged in “conduct that showed a reckless or callous
indifference to the rights of others.” Id. at 1205-09; see also Doc. 5 at 3 (noting that a
supervisor “is not liable for the constitutional violations of employees unless the
supervisor ‘participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and
failed to act to prevent them’” (quoting Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.
1989)).
The Amended Complaint asserts deliberate indifference claims, alleging that
plaintiff contracted COVID-19 when he was transferred to Oregon State Penitentiary
in April 2020 and that, once he was infected, he received negligent and inadequate
medical care. With respect to Governor Brown and Director Peters, the Amended
Complaint alleges only that (1) these defendants failed to provide an Emergency
Operational Procedure before implementing a quarantine on the Oregon Department
of Corrections’ facilities, (2) plaintiff could not have been transferred without Director
Peters’ authorization and Governor Brown’s knowledge, and (3) the medical
treatment that plaintiff received was not the proper medical care that Governor
Brown had promised in a press conference. Those conclusory allegations are not
sufficient to support a causal connection between these defendants’ conduct and
plaintiff’s alleged constitutional violation.
For those reasons, I agree with Judge Kasubhai’s conclusion that the Amended
Complaint fails to state claims for relief against Governor Brown and Director Peters
and ADOPT the F&R (doc. 10). Governor Brown, Director Peters, and the claims
against them are DISMISSED from this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 2_1__st_ day of January 2021.
_________/s_/_A_n__n_ A__i_k_e_n______
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge