Williams v. Allison et al

1
24-cv-1382-AGS-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
John Wesley WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Kathleen ALLISON, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 24-cv-1382-AGS-AHG
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF 21)
The self-represented inmate here is suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an allegedly
ongoing prison sewage saga. The defense moves to dismiss his claims.
DISCUSSION
For Willams’s complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, it must contain sufficient
facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The defense moves to dismiss claims against
all defendants, as well as raising specific arguments for dismissal against the supervisory
defendants—“Governor Gavin Newsom, [California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation] Secretary Kathleen Allison, Warden James Hill, Chief Deputy Warden R.
Buckel, and Chief Deputy Warden M. Palmer.” (ECF 21, at 2.)
A. Supervisory Defendants
The supervisory defendants seek dismissal on two grounds: (1) lack of “specificity”
in the “causal link” between them and the alleged violations, and (2) “implausib[ility].”
(ECF 21, at 7, 10.) As to the “causal link” argument, the supervisory defendants assert the
complaint doesn’t include “the requisite level of specificity” to render them accountable.
(Id. at 7.) But plaintiffs need not allege “that a supervisor was physically present when the
injury occurred” to adequately allege a supervisor’s section 1983 liability. Starr v. Baca,
652 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011). Supervisors may instead be held “individually liable
in § 1983 suits when culpable action, or inaction, is directly attributed to them.” Id. That
is, supervisors are liable for “acquiescence in the constitutional deprivation” or “conduct
Case 3:24-cv-01382-AGS-AHG Document 29 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

2
24-cv-1382-AGS-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that showed a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others.” Cunningham v.
Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1292 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs need only allege “a sufficient causal
connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.”
Hansen v. Beck, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (cleaned up).
According to the complaint, defendants “Allison, Newsom, Hill, Buckel, and Palmer
have been made aware through endless plum[b]ing work orders and plum[b]ing related
complaints” that there was a “constant and reoccurring” “overflood of feces, sewage, and
urine” causing a “risk of exposure to airborne contaminates like hepatitis, bacterial
infection, and covid-19.” (ECF 1, at 5.) These supervisory defendants, plaintiff alleges,
“each limit” the work done to remedy the “ongoing plum[b]ing deficiencies to patch work
to avoid addressing the prison[’]s plum[b]ing infrastructure.” (Id. at 14.) They “allow
subordinates to require plaintiff . . . to walk in and through the waste floods, enduring cross
contamination and the stink in order to receive meals.” (Id. at 6.) These allegations undercut
the defense’s position that “there are no specific factual allegations establishing their
knowledge that [p]laintiff was subjected to alleged ongoing unconstitutional conditions of
confinement.” (See ECF 21, at 8.) Williams alleges much more than “general[]
aware[ness],” as the defense contends, and thus sufficiently alleges a causal link to the
supervisory defendants. (See id.)
But the allegations must also be plausible. The complaint’s allegations meet this
standard as to supervisors Hill, Buckel, and Palmer, but not as to Governor Newsom and
Secretary Allison. The prison staff allegedly “alerted” Hill, Buckel, and Palmer “of each
emergency waste flood through [the] chain of command,” and plaintiff was “told ‘the
watch commander and warden know[]’” about these problems. (ECF 1, at 7.) But there are
no comparatively specific allegations that implicate Newsom or Allison. It seems
implausible that California’s governor and the head of the state correctional system would
be informed about plumbing issues at one of the many state prisons. And Williams alleges
no details as to how those two defendants would have otherwise been on notice about those
issues. His allegations that they generally “ignored the deficient plum[b]ing system” (id.
Case 3:24-cv-01382-AGS-AHG Document 29 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

3
24-cv-1382-AGS-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
at 10) are “mere conclusory statements” that are “not entitled to be assumed true,” see
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 681. So, Williams does not state a cognizable claim against
Governor Newsom or Secretary Allison.
B. All Defendants
Finally, the defense asserts that Williams’s deliberate-indifference claim fails
against every defendant because they sent “plumbers” to “regularly respond[]” to the
sewage issues. (ECF 21, at 11–12.) A prison employee is liable for deliberate indifference
if that “official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.”
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Among other things, Williams must show
that: (1) “the risk was obvious or . . . that the prison officials were aware of the substantial
risk” to inmate health or safety, and (2) “there was no reasonable justification for exposing
the inmates to the risk.” Lemire v. California Dept. of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062,
1078 (9th Cir. 2013). On the other hand, prison staff are not liable “if they responded
reasonably to the risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted.” Id. at 844.
At this early stage, Williams’s complaint adequately alleges that the defendants
could readily see that their repeated and woefully unsuccessful responses to the sewage
problem were not sufficiently reasonable to shield them from liability. For instance, even
the attending plumber admitted that anytime he “fix[es] one flood in one area, it happens
somewhere else,” resulting, at least once, in an “overflow” that began in the “dining hall”
and “rotate[d]” to the “exercise yard” before reaching the “housing units.” (ECF 1, at 6–
7.) Discovery may bear out—or disprove—the complaint’s allegations, but Williams
sufficiently states a claim.
CONCLUSION
The Court must give this self-represented plaintiff “the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe
v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). By that lenient standard, he states cognizable
claims against all defendants except for Governor Newsom and Secretary Allison. The
motion to dismiss those two defendants is GRANTED, but the motion is otherwise
DENIED.
Case 3:24-cv-01382-AGS-AHG Document 29 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

4
24-cv-1382-AGS-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Williams now has two options: (1) he may proceed with his lawsuit against the
remaining defendants or (2) he may amend his complaint to correct the deficiencies
identified in this order. If he chooses to amend his complaint, he must file it by April 10,
2026. The amended complaint must be complete by itself without reference to any previous
pleading. If he does not file an amended complaint by that date, this lawsuit will proceed
with his claims against supervisory defendants Hill, Buckel, and Palmer, as well as against
the two nonsupervisory correctional-officer defendants, Sergeant K. Juarez and
Officer C. Beltran.
Dated: March 16, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-01382-AGS-AHG Document 29 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4