(PC) Hisle v. Conanon, et al., No. 1:2017cv01400 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER adopting Findings and Recommendations, allowing action to proceed on Plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference against Defendants, Marlyn Conanon and John Doe (at Mercy Hospital) and dismissing all other Defendants re 7 , 11 , 12 signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/4/2018. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DENNIS CURTIS HISLE, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 11 v. MARLYN CONANON, et al., Defendants. 12 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:17-cv-01400-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ALLOWING ACTION TO PROCEED ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM OF DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE AGAINST DEFENDANTS MARLYN CONANON AND JOHN DOE (AT MERCY HOSPITAL), AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER DEFENDANTS [ECF Nos. 7, 11, 12] 14 Plaintiff Dennis Curtis Hisle is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 15 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 16 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 17 On November 29, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations 18 recommending that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against Defendants 19 Marlyn Conanon and John Doe (at Mercy Hospital) and all other Defendants be dismissed. The 20 Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to 21 be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections on December 14, 2017. (ECF No. 12.) 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 23 novo review of this case. In his objections, Plaintiff contends that he has stated a cognizable claim 24 against the Chief Medical Officer at Pleasant Valley State Prison because he knew or should have 25 known of the alleged mistreatment by subordinate medical staff. However, Plaintiff’s complaint fails 26 to allege that a pattern of unconstitutional medical care existed at the time of his alleged mistreatment 27 which would have provided notice to the Chief Medical Officer that medical staff had rendered 28 1 1 inappropriate treatment. Plaintiff’s allegations against one individual in connection with a single 2 medical condition for him alone does not raise an inference that there was inadequate training and/or 3 inadequate supervision for purposes of a supervisory liability claim. See Stanley v. Goodwin, 475 F. 4 Supp. 2d 1026, 1037 (D. Haw. 2006), aff'd, 262 F. App'x 786 (9th Cir. 2007) (identifying a single 5 incident does not meet the plaintiff's high burden of showing that the supervisor's indifference 6 amounts to an authorization of the offensive practice); Doe v. City of San Diego, 35 F. Supp. 3d 1214, 7 1228 (S.D. Cal. 2014) (“[T]he Court cannot find any case which imposes personal liability on a 8 supervisor for having knowledge of a single prior act of misconduct on the part of a subordinate.”); see 9 also Marsh v. County of San Diego, 680 F.3d 1148, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012) (allegations of an isolated 10 instance of a constitutional violation are insufficient to support a “failure to train” theory). In addition, 11 Plaintiff’s vague and bare allegations that his unconstitutional medical treatment resulted from a 12 policy or custom are insufficient. See Cholla Ready Mix. Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 13 2004) (a court is not “required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted 14 deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences”). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court 15 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on November 29, 2017, are adopted in full; 18 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against Defendants 19 20 21 22 Marlyn Conanon and John Doe (at Mercy Hospital); 3. All other Defendants are dismissed from the action for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and 4. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for initiation of service of process. 23 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ January 4, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 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.
