Skains v. Lee

Filing 26

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 19 Motion for Reconsideration. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

RANDY SKAINS,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

10

United States District Court

No. C-12-0087 EMC (pr)

YIP LEE, et al.,

12

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.
___________________________________/

13
14
15

Randy Skains, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison in Soledad, filed this pro se civil

16

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining about prison officials’ response to his medical

17

problems. The Court ordered service of process on seven defendants, and dismissed some

18

defendants and some claims. Mr. Skains has moved for reconsideration of the dismissal of a claim

19

pertaining to neck and back pain, and for reconsideration of the dismissal of defendants Ellis and

20

Bright. In his motion, Mr. Skains has identified particular passages in the second amended

21

complaint that he thought supported his claims.

22
23

The claim pertaining to Skains’ neck and back pain properly was dismissed for the reasons
stated at pages 5-6 of the Order Of Service.

24

Dr. Ellis and Dr. Bright properly were dismissed. Dr. Ellis allegedly was the chief medical

25

officer and in charge of the prison’s medical care; Dr. Bright allegedly was the chief physician and

26

surgeon at the prison during at least part of the relevant time period. The mere fact that these

27

doctors were in charge of the prison’s medical care does not make them liable because there is no

28

respondeat superior liability under § 1983, i.e. no liability under the theory that one is liable simply

Servs.,436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A supervisor

3

may be liable under § 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal involvement in the constitutional

4

deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the

5

constitutional violation. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1206-07 (9th Cir. 2011). The allegations

6

of the second amended complaint show no such involvement or causal connection for either doctor.

7

The allegations at pages 10, 13, 14, and 18 contend that Dr. Ellis decided inmate appeals slowly or

8

improperly, but that does not give rise to liability for the reasons explained at pages 3-4 of the Order

9

Of Dismissal With Leave To Amend and footnote 2 of the Order Of Service. The allegations on

10

page 9 do not mention Dr. Bright and, in any event, concern the handling of inmate appeals. Dr.

11
For the Northern District of California

because he employs a person who has violated plaintiff’s rights. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social

2

United States District Court

1

Ellis and Dr. Bright also allegedly were aware of Mr. Skains’ neck and back pain (see Second

12

Amended Complaint, p. 15), but that does not give rise to liability because, as explained at pages 5-6

13

of the Order Of Service, a claim was not stated with regard to the neck and back pain.

14

The motion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Docket # 19.)

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: May 9, 2013

19
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2