Eugene Jones v. CDCR, et al.

Jones v. CDCR · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · August 13, 2025 · No. 1:24-cv-01298-KES-BAM

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends dismissing Eugene Jones’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action with prejudice. The recommendation rests on failure to state a claim, failure to obey the court’s order requiring a second amended complaint, and failure to prosecute. The document addresses alleged excessive force, failure to protect, deliberate indifference to medical needs, supervisory liability, and joinder deficiencies.

Holdings

  1. A prisoner's complaint may be dismissed at screening when it lacks sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief, and Jones's first amended complaint failed to state a cognizable claim.
  2. A plaintiff may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated defendants in one action; multiple defendants may be joined only when the claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence and present a common question of law or fact.
  3. A supervisor cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 solely on a respondeat superior theory; liability requires personal participation, direction, knowledge combined with failure to act, or a constitutionally deficient policy that was the moving force of the violation.
  4. Jones failed to state cognizable Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, or failure to protect.
  5. Dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because Jones failed to file the required amended complaint after receiving an express warning, thereby failing to obey a court order and prosecute the action.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the action should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a cognizable constitutional claim.
  2. Whether the claims were improperly joined under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20.
  3. Whether the allegations against the warden failed to establish supervisory liability or deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm.
  4. Whether dismissal with prejudice was warranted for failure to obey the court's order and failure to prosecute.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (42)

  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-78 (2009)(followed)
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007)(followed)
  • Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1349, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997)(followed)
  • Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 42.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…