JAMES DARNELL JOHNSON, A.K.A. Robert Anson v. WARDEN DOMINICK DEROSE, Dauphin County Prison

DLD-007 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-2462
___________
JAMES DARNELL JOHNSON,
A.K.A. Robert Anson
v.
WARDEN DOMINICK DEROSE, Dauphin County Prison;
DEPUTY WARDEN NICHOLS
James Darnell Johnson, Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 08-cv-01393)
District Judge: Honorable Malcolm Muir
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
October 9, 2009
Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed October 20, 2009)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM

-- 1 of 4 --

In particular, Johnson claimed that the Defendants denied him telephone privileges,1
law library access, family visits, and the right to attend church services. In addition,
Johnson alleged that prison guards assaulted him, took his personal property, and forced
him to go to court “without underpants or socks or a haircut or shave.” Johnson did not
name these prison guards in his complaint, include them as John Doe defendants, or
request discovery to learn their identities.
2
While incarcerated in the Dauphin County Prison, James Johnson filed a pro se
civil rights complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Johnson alleged that the Warden and Deputy
Warden (the “Defendants”) violated his civil rights while he was on lock down status.1
The matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge, who granted Johnson’s motion to amend
his complaint. The order directed that Johnson file his amended complaint on or before
November 7, 2008, and include “any and all defendants whom [he] wished to name” and
“appropriate allegations of the defendant(s)[’] personal involvement.” Johnson, who was
released from prison on October 23, 2008, failed to file an amended complaint.
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, inter alia, that Johnson’s
complaint failed to allege that they were personally involved in the alleged violations of
his civil rights. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted
because Johnson sought damages against the Defendants under a respondeat superior
theory. Johnson did not oppose the motion to dismiss. The District Court adopted the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and granted the Defendants’ motion to
dismiss. Johnson appealed.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and exercise plenary review
over the District Court’s grant of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 230
(3d Cir. 2008). We accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint and
draw reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
93-94 (2007) (per curiam). To survive dismissal, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
It is well settled that liability under § 1983 may not based on the doctrine of
respondeat superior. See Durmer v. O’Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 69 n.14 (3d Cir. 1993).
Instead, the plaintiff must show that the official’s conduct caused the deprivation of a
federally protected right. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 ( 1985). More
particularly, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant was personally involved in the
deprivation. See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). “Personal
involvement can be shown through allegations of personal direction or of actual
knowledge and acquiescence.” Id.
Johnson’s complaint made no allegation whatsoever concerning the Defendants’
involvement in the alleged denials of his constitutional rights. As the Magistrate Judge
correctly explained, Johnson nowhere alleged that the Defendants directly participated in,

-- 3 of 4 --

4
or had knowledge of, the claims set forth in the complaint. Nor did Johnson allege that
the Defendants acquiesced in the alleged unconstitutional misconduct or failed to
properly train subordinate employees.
For these reasons, this appeal presents us with no substantial question.
Accordingly, we will summarily affirm. See I.O.P. 10.6.

-- 4 of 4 --