Shabazz v. Beard, et al.

Filing 30

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Supervisory Defendants be DISMISSED With Prejudice re 26 Second Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/7/2017. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMIR SHABAZZ, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:15-cv-00881-DAD-EPG (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., Defendants. (ECF No. 26) Plaintiff Amir Shabazz is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”) in this action. (ECF No. 26.) The Court screened the SAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and issued findings and recommendations regarding the SAC. (ECF No. 27.) In the Order Adopting In Part and Declining In Part the Findings and Recommendations, the District Judge found that Plaintiff should be allowed to “proceed on his Eighth Amendment claim in his second amended complaint,” but noted that “plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim may not be brought against certain defendants in their supervisorial capacities.” (ECF No. 29.) The District Judge did not dismiss out any specific defendants with respect to the Eighth Amendment claim. Pursuant to an order that will be entered concurrently with these findings and recommendations, the Court found that service of the SAC was appropriate, and forwarded 28 1 1 service documents to Plaintiff. To ensure that the appropriate defendants are served, the Court 2 issues the following findings and recommendations. As previously explained, “government officials may not be held liable for the action of 3 4 their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior.” (ECF No. 27, citing Ashcroft v. 5 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 673 (2009).) Thus, to state claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must 6 allege that the defendant “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations 7 and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.3d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Because 8 the SAC alleges no more than a supervisory role for some defendants, the Court finds that the 9 SAC fails to state a claim against defendants: Edmund G. Brown, Governor of California; 10 Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Governor of California; Jeffrey A. Beard, former Secretary of 11 the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and Matthew Cate, former Secretary of the 12 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.1 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is 13 hereby RECOMMENDED that these defendants be dismissed with prejudice from this case. 14 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 15 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 16 thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 17 file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 18 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 19 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 20 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014), citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 21 (9th Cir. 1991). IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: March 7, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Court understands that this list may not fully include all named defendants whose roles in the alleged actions were purely supervisorial. Thus, this order should not be read to preclude any remaining defendants from making any dispositive motion on the basis that they did not participate or know of the alleged constitutional violations. 2

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?