Marpel v. Saukhla et al
Filing
23
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/23/2011. Plaintiff's 20 Motion to Amend 1 Complaint is DENIED. Defendants' 21 Motion for Extension of Time w/in which to file Response is GRANTED. They shall file responsive pleading w/in 30 days after filing date of this Order. (Marciel, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JOSEPH MARPEL,
Plaintiff,
11
12
vs.
13
No. 2:11-cv-0387 KJN P
SAUKHLA, et al.,
Defendants.
14
ORDER
/
15
16
On February 22, 2011, the court found that plaintiff’s complaint states potentially
17
cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against physicians Saukhla and Bick, the latter defendant
18
the Chief Medical Officer at plaintiff’s place of incarceration, the California Medical Facility
19
(“CMF”). Defendants Saukhla and Bick have each appeared in this action by waiving service of
20
process.
21
Presently pending is plaintiff’s subsequently-filed motion to amend his complaint
22
to add defendant Nathaniel K. Elam, CMF’s Chief Executive Officer. (Dkt. No. 20.) Current
23
defendants have filed a motion requesting that the court screen the “amended complaint” and
24
accord defendants thirty days after the court’s screening order within which to file their response
25
to the complaint. (Dkt. No. 21.)
26
Mr. Elam does not appear to be a physician; nor does it appear that he has had any
1
1
direct contact with plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks to sue Elam in his professional and individual
2
capacities based on his allegations that Elam must be “responsible in some manner” for
3
plaintiff’s allegedly inadequate medical care; that Elam “is the person responsible for overseeing
4
the Medical 602 appeal process at CMF;” that Elam “failed to instruct Defendant N. Saukla MD
5
(sic) and J. Bick MD to perform their duties as indicated” by law; that “had Defendant Elam
6
exercised proper care and due diligence in performing his duties this cause would have no
7
standing;” and that “Plaintiff believes that defendant Elam is responsible for contributing to the
8
deprivation of plaintiff’s right to adequate medical care.” (Dkt. No. 20 at 2-3.)
9
These allegations do not state a potentially cognizable constitutional claim against
10
Mr. Elam. “Under Section 1983, supervisory officials are not liable for actions of subordinates
11
on any theory of vicarious liability. A supervisor may be liable [only] if there exists either (1) his
12
or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal
13
connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” Hansen
14
v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 645-646 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). Vague and conclusory
15
allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient to state a claim
16
under Section 1983. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). There can be
17
no liability under Section1983 absent demonstration of some affirmative link between a
18
defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976);
19
May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th
20
Cir. 1978). Pursuant to these authorities, plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a
21
potentially cognizable claim against Mr. Elam. Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint must
22
therefore denied. Should plaintiff later obtain additional information sufficient to state a
23
potentially cognizable claim against Elam, consistent with the requirements set forth above,
24
plaintiff may again move to amend the complaint.
25
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
26
1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (Dkt. No. 20) is denied without
2
1
prejudice;
2. Defendants' motion for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 21) within which to file
2
3
their response to the operative complaint is granted; and
3. Defendants shall file their response to the complaint within thirty days after the
4
5
filing date of this order.
6
DATED: June 23, 2011
7
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
marp0387.ord
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
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?