United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a former state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. In
addition to the warden, plaintiff also named fellow inmates
and John Does as defendants in plaintiff's amended
complaint. By separate order, service of process was ordered
on defendant Spearman. The court addresses the claims against
the remaining defendants herein.
names as defendants the inmates who allegedly assaulted
plaintiff on May 27, 2018. The Civil Rights Act under which
this action was filed provides as follows:
Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects,
or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States .
. . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or
other proper proceeding for redress.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an
actual connection or link between the actions of the
defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered
by plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of Social
Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (“Congress did not
intend § 1983 liability to attach where . . . causation
[is] absent.”); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362
(1976) (no affirmative link between the incidents of police
misconduct and the adoption of any plan or policy
demonstrating their authorization or approval of such
misconduct). “A person ‘subjects' another to
the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning
of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates
in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act
which he is legally required to do that causes the
deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v.
Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
Newman, Threadgill, and Helgeson were prison inmates.
Plaintiff includes no allegations demonstrating that such
defendants acted under color of state law. Plaintiff alleges
such defendants attacked plaintiff based on racially
motivated hate, but such allegations fail to demonstrate they
were state actors. Thus, such inmate defendants must be
John Doe Defendants
plaintiff initially states that defendants John Does 1 to 4
“are prison inmates” (ECF No. 13 at 2),
plaintiff's allegations make clear that he intends to
name the correctional officers who allegedly failed to
protect plaintiff during the May 27, 2018 attack (ECF No. 13
at 3). Plaintiff provides specific allegations that would
assist in identifying such officers. As plaintiff was
previously informed, service of process on such defendants
cannot be accomplished until plaintiff obtains the names of
such John Doe defendants. Thus, once service of process on
defendant Spearman has been accomplished, plaintiff should
seek leave of court to conduct limited discovery to identify
the true identities of such John Doe defendants as soon as
HEREBY ORDERED that following service of process on defendant
Spearman, plaintiff shall promptly move to conduct limited
discovery to identify the defendants named as John Does 1 to
IT IS RECOMMENDED that defendants Newman, Threadgill, and
Helgeson be dismissed from this action.
findings and recommendations are submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen
days after being served with these findings and
recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with
the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document
should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is
advised that failure to file objections within the specified
time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's
order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.