Hartmann v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al, No. 1:2010cv00045 - Document 79 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER RE: Plaintiff's Request for Clarification of Findings and Recommendations Adopted June 11, 2010 (Docs. 77 , 78 ), Signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/14/2010. (Arellano, S.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hartmann v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al Doc. 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SHAWNA HARTMANN AND CAREN HILL, CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00045-LJO-SMS 10 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED JUNE 11, 2010 Plaintiffs, 11 v. 12 13 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., 14 (Docs. 77 & 78) Defendants. 15 / 16 Plaintiffs Shawna Hartmann and Caren Hill, inmates incarcerated at Central California 17 Women’s Facility (“CCWF”), by their attorney Barbara McGraw, have requested clarification of 18 the Findings and Recommendations adopted by this Court on June 11, 2010. Specifically, 19 Plaintiffs ask (1) whether their amended complaint “may name appropriate official capacity 20 defendant(s), even if the Adopted F&Rs have dismissed such defendant(s),” and (2) whether 21 Defendant Smith “remains a defendant in his individual-personal capacity.” 22 In evaluating Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court found that, as set forth in 23 Plaintiff’s Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 19)(“complaint”), Claim One failed 24 to state a cognizable federal claim for violation of the Establishment Clause and required 25 dismissal. Because “substitution of one or more appropriate Defendants would render the claim 26 cognizable,” however, the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend Count One. Despite the 27 Court’s extensive discussion regarding pleading standards and their relationship with claims 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 against specific types of defendants, Plaintiffs are apparently struggling to identify “appropriate 2 defendants.” 3 Identifying defendants on Plaintiffs’ behalf is not this Court’s role. Nor could the Court 4 do so in light of the minimal factual information in the complaint. The abstract nature of 5 Plaintiffs’ inquiry further complicates any response the Court might offer. The Court dismissed 6 Defendants for multiple reasons, including, among other things, Plaintiffs’ failure to include any 7 substantive allegations whatsoever against certain Defendants; to identify Defendants who had 8 the power or responsibility to promulgate the allegedly unconstitutional policy; to name as 9 Defendants individuals who have the power or capacity to enforce or implement the declaratory 10 and injunctive relief that Plaintiffs seek; to affirmatively link each Defendant to the alleged 11 wrong(s) against Plaintiffs; and to allege sufficient facts to support the allegation(s) against each 12 Defendant. 13 In its Findings and Recommendations, the Court agreed with Defendants that “the 14 complaint is unduly complex and confusing, and that its objective(s) are unclear.” No shortcut 15 exists for Plaintiffs. Amending Count One requires that they identify the factual background for 16 their claim and allege those facts in a simple and coherent manner satisfying the pleading 17 standards set forth in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ 18 U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). The process of setting forth the factual basis of their claim 19 should enable Plaintiffs to identify the actor(s) responsible, to link each such actor to facts 20 establishing his or her role in the alleged wrongdoing, and to set forth each actor’s ability to 21 implement the requested injunctive and declaratory relief. 22 The specific question regarding personal-capacity claims against Defendant Barry Smith 23 is an example of the type of analysis in which Plaintiffs must engage. Because the Court has 24 dismissed Count One, no claims remain against any Defendant, including Smith. Plaintiffs 25 themselves must determine the propriety of asserting a personal-capacity claim against Smith in 26 the amended complaint. 27 A personal-capacity suit alleges that an official acting under color of state law deprived 28 the plaintiff of a federal right and seeks to recover damages from the official’s personal assets; 2 1 the defendant in a personal-capacity claim retains “personal immunity defenses, such as 2 reasonable reliance on existing law.” To the extent that Count One seeks only injunctive or 3 declaratory relief, Plaintiffs’ purpose in naming a personal-capacity defendant, such as Smith, is 4 unclear. If Plaintiffs intend to assert personal-capacity claims against Smith or any other 5 individual, their amended complaint must fully allege the facts entitling them to prevail on those 6 claims as well as requesting relief appropriate to a personal-capacity claim. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: b9ed48 June 14, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
