Sullivan v. Biter et al

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING 28 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/28/17. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL JOHN SULLIVAN,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:15-cv-00243-DAD-SAB

Plaintiff,
v.
M.D. BITER, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(Doc. No. 28)

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

19

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On November 17, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

21

recommendations, finding that plaintiff stated a claim against defendant Biter based upon his

22

allegations of unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment

23

relating to plaintiff’s allegedly contaminated drinking water. (Doc. No. 28.) Concerning all other

24

defendants named and claims asserted by plaintiff, the magistrate judge recommended the action

25

be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. (Id.) The findings and recommendations

26

explains that the magistrate judge initially dismissed this action with leave to amend, and directed

27

plaintiff to either amend his complaint or notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on

28

the claims found cognizable. (Id.) Following months of delay pursuant to various extensions of
1

1

time, plaintiff ultimately advised the court that although he believed the magistrate judge’s

2

findings were wrong and did not wish to amend the complaint. (Id.) The findings and

3

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections thereto were to be

4

filed within fourteen days. Following the granting of several extensions of time in which to do

5

so, plaintiff filed objections on March 8, 2017, asserting that the findings and recommendations

6

were contrary to law. (Doc. No. 35.)

7

Plaintiff argues in his objections that he is unable to allege facts showing that other prison

8

officials were aware of the conditions he complains of without conducting additional discovery.1

9

Nevertheless, plaintiff maintains his allegations are sufficient to state a cognizable claim against

10

these other individuals. Plaintiff further argues that the prison officials’ knowledge can be

11

inferred through common sense, and that the magistrate judge did not construe his pleading

12

liberally enough based on his pro se status. Plaintiff’s arguments are not persuasive.

13

Conclusory allegations that various prison officials knew or should have known about

14

constitutional violations occurring against plaintiff simply because of their general supervisory

15

role are insufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of

16

New York City, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) (no respondeat superior liability under § 1983); Starr v.

17

Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (supervisorial liability under § 1983 exists only if

18

supervisor personally involved in constitutional deprivation or supervisor’s wrongful conduct

19

causally connected to deprivation).

20

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has

21

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

22

undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by

23

proper analysis.

24

/////

25

/////

26
27
28

1

The court notes that should, in the course of discovery, plaintiff become aware of facts
indicating the involvement of other defendants in the alleged constitutional deprivation, he may
move at that time to amend his complaint in order to allege those newly discovered facts.
2

1

Accordingly:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed on November 17, 2017 (Doc. No. 28) are

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

adopted in full;
2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement
claim against defendant Biter;
3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted and the docket shall reflect these dismissals; and
4. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for initiation of service.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 28, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3