Halloum v. Ryan et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting 19 Defendant's Motion for Clarification. Plaintiff's claims in Count VI of the Complaint are dismissed as to Defendant Eherdt. Defendant Eherdt is not required to answer Count VI of the Complaint. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 5/25/11.(DMT)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Ammar Dean Halloum,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
Charles Ryan, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 11-97-PHX-RCB (JRI)
ORDER

15
16

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ May 13, 2011 Motion for Clarification

17

(Doc. 19) regarding Count VI of the Complaint and Defendant Eherdt. Because the Court

18

inadvertently failed to address Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant Eherdt in Count VI

19

of the Complaint, the Court will grant the Motion and clarify the screening Order.

20

In Count VI, Plaintiff alleges that he repeatedly informed Defendant Eherdt of

21

Defendant Rhibibe’s “violation of the U.S. Constitution and prison policy,” but Defendant

22

Eherdt failed to stop the “deprivation and violations.”

23

The mere denial of a grievance does not give rise to the inference of active

24

unconstitutional behavior.

Where a defendant’s only involvement in the allegedly

25

unconstitutional conduct is the denial of, or failure to respond to, administrative grievances,

26

the failure to intervene on a prisoner’s behalf to remedy alleged unconstitutional behavior

27

does not amount to active unconstitutional behavior for purposes of § 1983. Shehee v.

28

Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff has not alleged facts in Count VI

1

demonstrating that Defendant Eherdt did more than simply fail to intervene on Plaintiff’s

2

behalf. Plaintiff has therefore failed to state a claim against Defendant Eherdt in Count VI.

3

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Eherdt in Count VI are dismissed.

4

IT IS ORDERED:

5

(1)

Defendants’ May 13, 2011 Motion for Clarification (Doc. 19) is granted.

6

(2)

Plaintiff’s claims in Count VI of the Complaint are dismissed as to Defendant

7
8

Eherdt. Defendant Eherdt is not required to answer Count VI of the Complaint.
DATED this 25th day of May, 2011.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-