(PC) Gonzalez v. Cate et al, No. 1:2009cv02149 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/4/2011 recommending that certain claims and Defendants be dismissed. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 2/7/2011. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Gonzalez v. Cate et al Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ZACARIAS GONZALES, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., 13 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) / CASE NO. 1:09-cv-02149 LJO GSA PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 14 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 16 § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 17 § 636(b)(1). 18 I. Plaintiff’s Claims 19 Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 20 Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Avenal State Prison, brings this civil rights action against the following 21 individual defendants: James Hartley, Warden at Avenal State Prison; Captain Guinn, Facility IV 22 Captain at Avenal State Prison, Sergeant Recio; Sergeant Grubb. Plaintiff’s claim stems from an 23 assault on Plaintiff by another inmate at Avenal. 24 On September 25, 2009, while standing in the dayroom in housing unit 430, Plaintiff was 25 attacked by another inmate. (Am Compl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges that “for approximately 7 minutes,” 26 the floor officers made no attempt to remove the attacking inmate from the immediate area, or to 27 place him in restraints. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13.) As a result of his injuries, Plaintiff was transferred to 28 an outside hospital. (Compl. ¶ 14.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Plaintiff claims that defendants, by virtue of their positions, are liable for the assault on 2 Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Warden Hartley failed to properly train Defendants Guinn, 3 Grubb, and Recio. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Hartley failed to train Guinn, Grubb and Recion 4 “to reasonably protect Plaintiff from the threat of violence as well as the violent act perpetrated upon 5 Plaintiff by Inmate Hyman.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 15.) 6 A. 7 As to Plaintiff’s specific allegations of failure to train, in City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 8 U.S. 378 (1989), which is cited by defendants in their motion, the Supreme Court held that, under 9 certain circumstances, a municipality may be held liable based on the failure to train its employees. 10 This court finds no authority for the extension of City of Canton and its progeny to a state prison 11 official being sued in his personal capacity. It appears to this court, following a review of the 12 relevant case law, that the cases involving failure to train are limited to suits against city and county 13 entities. The Court will address Plaintiff’s allegations under theory of supervisory liability below. Failure to Train 14 B. 15 Under section 1983, Plaintiff must prove that the Defendants holding supervisory positions 16 personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th 17 Cir. 2002). There is no respondeat superior liability, and each defendant is only liable for his or her 18 own misconduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948-49 (2009). A supervisor may be held 19 liable for the constitutional violations of his or her subordinates only if he or she “participated in or 20 directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 21 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); also Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th Cir. 2009); 22 Preschooler II v. Clark County School Board of Trustees, 479 F.3d 1175, 1182 (9th Cir. 2007); 23 Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1204 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff has not alleged any facts 24 indicating that any of the named defendants “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of 25 the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Supervisory Liability 26 As noted above, in order to hold Warden Hartley liable, Plaintiff must allege facts from 27 which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and facts indicating 28 that Wardeny Hartley drew the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Here, Plaintiff alleges that he 2 1 was assaulted, and that Hartley and the other defendants should have known of the risk. Plaintiff has 2 not alleged any facts indicating how Defendant Hartley knew of the risk. He should therefore be 3 dismissed. 4 C. 5 “Prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse.” 6 Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1250-51 (9th Cir. 1982). To establish a violation of this duty, the 7 prisoner must establish that prison officials were “deliberately indifferent” to serious threats to the 8 inmate’s safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). To demonstrate that a prison 9 official was deliberately indifferent to a serious threat to the inmate’s safety, the prisoner must show 10 that “the official [knew] of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to inmate . . . safety; the official must 11 both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious 12 harm exists, and [the official] must also draw the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Eighth Amendment 13 Plaintiff may not allege facts indicating that he was attacked, and then hold defendants liable 14 on the theory that they should have known of the danger. Plaintiff must allege specific facts 15 indicating that each of the named defendants knew of the harm to Plaintiff and acted with disregard 16 to that harm. Plaintiff must charge defendants with conduct that caused him injury. A single 17 incident of an assault on Plaintiff, with no other allegations, fails to satisfy that standard. Plaintiff 18 alleges no facts indicating that Defendants Recio or Grubb knew of and disregarded a serious risk 19 to Plaintiff’s safety. 20 III. Conclusion and Order 21 The Court has screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and finds that, as to Defendants 22 Hartley, Grubb, and Recio, the first amended complaint does does not state any claims upon which 23 relief may be granted under section 1983. On November 8, 2010, an order was entered, advising 24 Plaintiff of these same deficiencies in the original complaint, and granting Plaintiff leave to file an 25 amended complaint. 26 defendants. Plaintiff re-states the allegations of the original complaint, adding Sergeant Grubb as 27 a defendant. Plaintiff has not, however, alleged any facts indicating that Defendants Hartley, Recio 28 or Grubb knew of and disregarded a serious risk to Plaintiff’s safety. Plaintiff has been provided The Court finds that Plaintiff has not cured the deficiencies as to these 3 1 with the opportunity to file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies identified by the Court 2 in the November 8, 2010, order. Plaintiff has failed to do so. The Court will therefore recommend 3 dismissal of these defendants without further leave to amend. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448- 4 49 (9th Cir. 1987). 5 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants Recio, Hartley and Grubb be dismissed, and Plaintiff’s failure to train claim be dismissed. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within thirty 9 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 10 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 11 Findings and Recommendations.” 12 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 13 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 14 15 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij January 4, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
