Knapp v. Cate, et al.
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 69 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 10/3/2011. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ERIC CHARLES RODNEY KNAPP,
CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01779-SMS PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
(ECF No. 69)
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
Plaintiff Eric Charles Rodney Knapp (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 20, 2008.
On August 8, 2011, an order issued dismissing certain claims and defendants. (ECF No. 60.)
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order on September 7, 2011. (ECF No. 69.)
Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[o]n motion and just terms,
the court may relieve a party . . .from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence .
. . (3) fraud . . .; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged;
. . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b). Plaintiff brings this
motion requesting reconsideration of the order dismissing his claims against supervisory defendants.
Plaintiff argues that the ruling in Starr v. Baca, 633 F.3d. 1191 (9th Cir. 2011), held that Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), did not alter the substantive pleading requirements for supervisory
liability. Plaintiff claims the order dismissing Defendants Cate, Chavez, Rawlinson, and Grannis was
clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Starr stated that “a plaintiff may state a claim against a supervisor for deliberate indifference
based upon the supervisor’s knowledge of and acquiescence in unconstitutional conduct by his or
her subordinates.” Starr v. Baca, __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 2988827, * 4 (9th 2011). A supervisor may
be held liable under section 1983 if he was personally involved in the constitutional deprivation or
where there is “a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the
constitutional violation.” Id. at * 5 (quoting Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)).
In Starr the Court found that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, Plaintiff had set forth
sufficient factual allegations to show that the defendant had knew or should have known of the
constitutional violations. Starr, 2011 WL 2988827, * 14 (“Starr’s complaint makes detailed factual
allegations that go well beyond reciting the elements of a claim for deliberate indifference”).
The basis of Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is unclear to the Court. Plaintiff cites Star
for the proposition that Iqbal did not change the pleading requirement for supervisory liability
claims; however, Plaintiff did not bring his claims alleging supervisory liability. Plaintiff’s
American With Disabilities Act, First Amendment retaliation, Eighth Amendment, due process and
equal protection claims were dismissed because Plaintiff failed to set forth factual allegations
sufficient to state a claim for a constitutional violation. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment
claim against Defendant Cate was dismissed because the factual allegations in the complaint failed
to establish that Defendant Cate had knowledge that Plaintiff was at a risk of harm. For these
reasons, the Court’s decision was not in error or contrary to law and Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 3, 2011
/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?