Keith Lake, individually and as a representative of the class defined herein below v. Leroy Baca;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, United States District Judge for the**
District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEITH LAKE, individually and as a
representative of the class defined herein
below,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LEROY BACA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-55796
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-08055-DDP-SH
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 7, 2009
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, Chief**
District Judge.
Keith Lake appeals from three orders by the district court that resulted in the
entry of summary judgment for the defendants on his action filed pursuant to 42
FILED
FEB 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
U.S.C. § 1983 based on his over-detention and defendants’ alleged attempt to
coerce a settlement of his claim for over-detention. We affirm.
The district court found that Lake had not alleged that the named defendants
had (1) any personal involvement in his over-detention, (2) any direct contact with
him, or (3) actual knowledge of his incarceration. Nonetheless, Lake argues that
even though the defendants had no personal involvement in his over-detention,
they could still be individually liable if he shows a causal connection between their
wrongful acts and the constitutional violation. See Redman v. County of San
Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc). Here, the district court
properly determined that Lake had not adequately alleged such a connection. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (“In a § 1983 suit or a Bivens action –
where masters do not answer for the torts of their servants – the term ‘supervisory
liability’ is a misnomer. Absent vicarious liability, each Government official, his or
her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own misconduct.”).
Moreover, even if there were some question at the time of the district court’s order
as to the degree of specificity required in the pleadings, the Supreme Court has
now established that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must
plead a set of facts “that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Lake’s allegations against

-- 2 of 4 --

3
defendants in their individual capacity fail to meet this standard. The district court
properly dismissed Lake’s claims against defendants in their individual capacities.
This conclusion is reinforced by our determination that for the reasons set
forth in our opinions in Mortimer v. Baca , ___ F.3d ___ (February 5, 2010) and
Avalos v. Baca, ___ F.3d ___ (February XX, 2010), Lake has failed to show that
his over-detention was the result of any custom, policy or practice by the Los
Angeles Sheriff’s Department. Accordingly, the district court properly granted
summary judgment for defendants on his claim for damages for his over-detention.
Similarly, we conclude for the reasons set forth in Avalos, (slip op. at 11-17)
that there is no free-standing constitutional right to be free from an allegedly
coerced settlement of a civil claim. Moreover, here it is not clear that Lake
actually entered into a settlement, and to the extent that the waiver or settlement
was designed to deny Lake access to the court, it obviously failed. Accordingly,
the district court properly granted defendants judgment on the pleadings as to
Lake’s involuntary waiver claim.
Because the district court properly denied Lake relief on all of his
substantive claims, it also properly denied him relief on his claims that the
defendants conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights. See Cassettari v.
Nevada County, 824 F.2d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 1987) (noting that “[t]he insufficiency

-- 3 of 4 --

4
of these allegations to support a section 1983 violation precludes a conspiracy
claim predicated on the same allegations”).
For the foregoing reasons, Lake’s challenges to the district court’s orders are
rejected and the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants
is AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --