(PC) Williams v. Ortiz et al, No. 2:2009cv00540 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 08/12/10 ORDERING plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is granted. Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this actio n. All payments shall be collected in accordance with the court's CDC order filed concurrently herewith. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient to state cognizable claims against defendants Ortiz, Stinson and Lebeck. The clerk of the court shall provide plaintiff a blank summons, a copy of the 02/25/09 complaint, 3 USM-285 forms and instruction sheet to be completed and returned within 30 days. Also, RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's claims against defendant Anthony J. Malfi be dismissed. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)

Download PDF

(PC) Williams v. Ortiz et al Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHARLES L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, 11 12 vs. 13 No. CIV S-09-0540 JAM EFB P L. ORTIZ, et. al. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 14 / 15 16 Charles Williams, an inmate confined at California Men’s Colony State Prison, filed this 17 pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint concerns events alleged to have 18 occurred while he was housed at California State Prison Sacramento. In addition to filing a 19 complaint, he has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was 20 referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 21 I. 22 Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 23 Dckt. No. 2. His application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 24 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 25 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 II. Screening Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court shall review “a complaint in a civil action in 3 which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 4 governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). “On review, the court shall identify cognizable 5 claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, 6 malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief 7 from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 8 9 Plaintiff claims that, despite his repeated protestations, defendants Ortiz, Stinson, and Lebeck made him wear broken shower sandals and walk down a flight of stairs when he had a 10 cane, a bad knee, and was dizzy and drowsy from medication. He alleges that as a consequence 11 he fell and was injured. The court notes that the Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from 12 inhumane methods of punishment and from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. 13 Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). In order to state a claim for violation of the 14 Eighth Amendment, the plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to support a claim that prison 15 officials knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff. E.g., Farmer 16 v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). 17 18 19 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and, for the limited purposes of § 1915A screening, finds that it states a cognizable claim against defendants Ortiz, Stinson, and Lebeck. The complaint does not state a cognizable claim against defendant Malfi. Plaintiff asserts 20 that, as the warden of the prison, Malfi is responsible for the actions of his subordinates. 21 Plaintiff may not sue any supervisor on a theory that the supervisor is liable for the acts of his or 22 her subordinates. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). A supervisor may be 23 held liable in his or her individual capacity “‘for his own culpable action or inaction in the 24 training, supervision or control of his subordinates.’” Watkins v. City of Oakland, Cal., 145 F.3d 25 1087, 1093 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 646 (9th Cir. 26 1991)). “A supervisor is only liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the 2 1 supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to 2 prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, plaintiff does not 3 assert that Malfi participated in or knew of the violations. Therefore, plaintiff’s claims against 4 Malfi should be dismissed. 5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 7 2. Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350 for this action. All payments shall 8 be collected and paid in accordance with the notice to the Director of the California Department 9 of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 10 3. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state cognizable claims against 11 defendants L. Ortiz, A. Stinson, and J. Lebeck. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. With this order the 12 Clerk of the Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a copy of the complaint filed 13 February 25, 2009, three USM-285 forms and instructions for service of process on defendants 14 Ortiz, Stinson and Lebeck. Within 30 days of service of this order plaintiff may return the 15 attached Notice of Submission of Documents with the completed summons, the completed 16 USM-285 forms, and four copies of the February 25, 2009 complaint. The court will transmit 17 them to the United States Marshal for service of process pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules 18 of Civil Procedure. Defendants Ortiz, Stinson and Lebeck will be required to respond to 19 plaintiff’s allegations within the deadlines stated in Rule 12(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil 20 Procedure. 21 22 23 24 4. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendant Anthony J. Malfi be dismissed. 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 3 1 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 2 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 3 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 4 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 5 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 Dated: August 12, 2010. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 CHARLES L. WILLIAMS, 9 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-0540 JAM EFB P 10 vs. 11 L. ORTIZ, et. al, 12 Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS 13 / 14 Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s order 15 filed : 16 1 completed summons form 3 completed forms USM-285 4 copies of the February 25, 2009 Complaint 17 18 19 20 Dated: 21 Plaintiff 22 23 24 25 26 5

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.