(PC) Wilson v. Dickinson et al, No. 2:2009cv02667 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 05/06/10 recommending that Dickinson be dismissed as a defendant to this action, which should proceed against defendant Mercado only. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 20 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Wilson v. Dickinson et al Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 BENNIE R. WILSON, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 No. CIV S-09-2667-MCE-CMK-P Plaintiff, vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS KATHLEEN DICKINSON, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 4). 16 Plaintiff’s factual allegations are set forth in the accompanying order and will not 17 be repeated here. As to defendant Dickinson, who is the prison warden, plaintiff alleges that he 18 informed her of alleged constitutional violations via the prison grievance process but that 19 Dickinson failed to correct the problem. Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under 20 § 1983 for the actions of their employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 21 1989) (holding that there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983). A supervisor is only 22 liable for the constitutional violations of subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed 23 the violations. See id. The Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a supervisory defendant 24 can be liable based on knowledge and acquiescence in a subordinate’s unconstitutional conduct 25 because government officials, regardless of their title, can only be held liable under § 1983 for 26 his or her own conduct and not the conduct of others. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 1949 (2009). When a defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link between such 2 defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. 3 Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 4 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of supervisory personnel 5 in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th 6 Cir. 1982). “[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the 7 official’s own individual actions, has violated the constitution.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1948. 8 9 Because plaintiff’s claim against Dickinson is based on knowledge and acquiescence and not on actual personal participation in a constitutional violation, he cannot state 10 a claim against Dickinson, who should be dismissed with prejudice. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 11 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 12 13 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Dickinson be dismissed as a defendant to this action, which should proceed against defendant Mercado only. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 15 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days 16 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 17 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 18 Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 19 the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 21 22 23 DATED: May 6, 2010 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 2
]]>
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.
