(PC) Peets v. Brown et al, No. 2:2018cv02469 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 10/03/19 RECOMMENDING that plaintiffs claims against Jerry Brown be DISMISSED. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOUIS IVESTER PEETS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. No. 2:18-CV-2469-KJM-DMC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JERRY BROWN, JR., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By separate order, this Court found Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts for his 19 claims related to every Defendant save for Jerry Brown to proceed past screening. The Court 20 noted this was because there were no facts that established Jerry Brown caused any of the 21 constitutional violations alleged by Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s theory of liability against Jerry Brown 22 was a far too attenuated theory of supervisory liability. Because no facts supported such a theory 23 of liability and because it does not seem Plaintiff can allege such facts, this Court recommends 24 dismissal of Jerry Brown as a defendant. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 2 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff has named 15 Defendants: (1) Jerry Brown Jr., (2) Scott Kernan, (3) 3 Kathleen Allison, (4) Roberty W. Fox, (5) Richard Townsend, (6) David Maldonado, (7) Thomas 4 Huntley, (8) James Appleberry, (9) Christopher Tileston, (10) Daniel Cueva, (11) J. Domiguez, 5 (12) M. Voong, (13) David Haley, (14) Maylene Boucher, (15) Paul Shleffar. Plaintiff raises four 6 claims: (1) Defendants violated his First Amendment right to free speech by retaliating against 7 him for complaining, ultimately chilling his speech; (2) Defendants violated his First Amendment 8 right to free exercise of religion by attempting to force him to work on the sabbath and giving him 9 repeated write ups for refusing to work on the sabbath; (3) Defendants violated the Religious 10 Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by harassing him or allowing him to be 11 harassed for exercising his religious right not to engage in work on the sabbath; (4) Defendants 12 violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection by discriminating against him on the 13 basis of his Jewish faith; (5) Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process 14 by issuing him write ups citing to a rule that does not exist, depriving him of fair notice, and 15 because even if the rule were corrected there would be insufficient evidence to support it. 16 17 18 II. ANALYSIS Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their 19 employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that there is no 20 respondeat superior liability under § 1983). A supervisor is only liable for the constitutional 21 violations of subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations. See id. The 22 Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a supervisory defendant can be liable based on 23 knowledge and acquiescence in a subordinate’s unconstitutional conduct because government 24 officials, regardless of their title, can only be held liable under § 1983 for his or her own conduct 25 and not the conduct of others. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). Supervisory 26 personnel who implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of 27 constitutional rights and the moving force behind a constitutional violation may, however, be 28 liable even where such personnel do not overtly participate in the offensive act. See Redman v. 2 1 2 Cnty of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). When a defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link between such 3 defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. 4 Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 5 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of supervisory personnel in 6 civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th 7 Cir. 1982). “[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the 8 official’s own individual actions, has violated the constitution.” Iqbal, 662 U.S. at 676. 9 There are no facts in the complaint indicating Jerry Brown engaged in any direct 10 activity against Plaintiff resulting in the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Further, 11 based on the allegations in the complaint there is no indication Jerry Brown was even aware 12 Plaintiff was in prison. For these reasons, Plaintiff cannot establish Jerry Brown violated his 13 constitutional rights and any attempt at amendment would likely be futile. 14 15 16 17 III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing the undersigned recommends Plaintiff’s claims against Jerry Brown be DISMISSED. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 19 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 20 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 21 objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 22 objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 23 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 25 Dated: October 3, 2019 ____________________________________ DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
