Santos v. Allen et al

Filing 35

ORDER that 30 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is GRANTED only as to injunctive relief and the addition of relevant facts supporting plausibility under Twombly. The motion is DENIED as to suit against the officials in their official capacity. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 27 Defendants' Motion for Partial Dismissal is DENIED. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 9/30/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

RONALD SANTOS,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

Case No. 2:11-CV-01251-KJD-NJK

ISIDRO BACA, et al.,

14

ORDER

Defendants.

15
16

Before the Court is Defendants Isidro Baca et al.’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Partial

17

Dismissal (#27). Plaintiff Ronald Santos (“Plaintiff”) responded (#29) and Defendants replied (#32).

18

Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint (#30). Defendants

19

responded (#33) and Plaintiff replied (#34).

20

I. Motion to Amend Analysis

21
22

Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint which is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to include
“that all Defendants acted in their official capacity–and to add Injunctive Relief Sought.”

23

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) reads: “The court should freely give leave [to

24

amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Also pertinent here, Plaintiff is pro se, meaning

25

that his submissions to the Court are “to be liberally construed, and . . . however inartfully pleaded,

26

1

must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v.

2

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations and internal quotation omitted).

3

As both of these considerations weigh strongly in favor of liberality, the Court is inclined to

4

grant Plaintiff’s Motion. However, while the petition for injunctive relief is permissible, “officials

5

acting in their official capacities” are not susceptible to suit under § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of

6

State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint

7

(#30) is granted only with respect to claims for injunctive relief.

8

II. Motion for Partial Dismissal Analysis

9

Defendants move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Warden Dwight

10

Neven (“Neven”) from the present action for failure to allege sufficient facts to sustain a plausible

11

claim. When a motion to dismiss is made, the Court must construe the facts in the light most

12

favorable to the non-moving party. Wyler Summit Partnership v. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.,

13

135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998). Further, Plaintiff is pro se, meaning that his submissions to the

14

Court are “to be liberally construed, and . . . however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less

15

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94

16

(2007) (citations and internal quotation omitted). However, even given the highly liberal standard

17

describe above, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

18

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.

19

1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

20

Defendants correctly assert that “[a] supervisor is only liable for constitutional violations of

21

his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations

22

and failed to act to prevent them. There is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983.”

23

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Defendants argue that the claims against Neven

24

should be dismissed as Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient participation in the violations. However, this

25

argument ignores both that mere knowledge of the violations is enough, and the liberal standard

26

applied to pro se pleadings discussed above. Further, Defendants fail to meaningfully reply to
2

1

Plaintiff’s response regarding Neven’s involvement in the alleged violations of the Free Exercise

2

Clause via the operational procedures governing the chapel. Accordingly, Defendants have not met

3

their burden.

4

III. Conclusion

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (#30) is GRANTED only as

6

to injunctive relief and the addition of relevant facts supporting plausibility under Twombly.

7

Plaintiff’s Motion (#30) is DENIED as to suit against the officials in their official capacity.

8
9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal (#27) is
DENIED.
DATED this 30th day of September 2013.

11
12
13
14

_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3