Timberman v. Arizona Department of Corrections et al
Filing
16
ORDER Count Three is dismissed without prejudice. Defendants GEO Corporation and Doe Corporation are dismissed without prejudice. Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff must file a Response to this Order that includes either (1) the name of at least one of the John Doe Defendants or (2) an explanation of what Plaintiff has done to try to learn their names, a description of what discovery he would undertake to learn their names, and the identity of at least one person who could be s erved with discovery. If Plaintiff fails to file a Response within 30 days, the Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 7/18/12. (KMG)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.,)
)
)
Defendants.
)
Robert Lee Timberman,
No. CV 12-0092-PHX-RCB (DKD)
ORDER
15
16
On January 13, 2012, Plaintiff Robert Lee Timberman, who is confined in the Arizona
17
State Prison Complex-Winslow in St.Johns, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint
18
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and a Motion
19
for Appointment of Counsel. In a February 2, 2012 Order, the Court granted the Application
20
to Proceed, denied the Motion for Appointment of Counsel, and dismissed the Complaint
21
because Plaintiff had failed to comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4. The Court
22
gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in
23
the Order.
24
25
Amended Complaint. In a March 16, 2012 Order, the Court denied the Motion for
26
Appointment of Counsel and dismissed the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a
27
JDDL
On February 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel and a First
claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended complaint that cured the
28
1
deficiencies identified in the Order.
2
On April 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a third Motion for Appointment of Counsel and a
3
Second Amended Complaint. In a May 11, 2012 Order, the Court denied the third Motion
4
for Appointment of Counsel and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint because Plaintiff
5
had failed to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court gave
6
Plaintiff 30 days to file a third amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in
7
the Order.
8
9
On June 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 15).
I.
Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints
10
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against
11
a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
12
§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised
13
claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may
14
be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
15
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
16
A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
17
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does not
18
demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-
19
unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).
20
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
21
statements, do not suffice.” Id.
22
23
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
24
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content
25
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
26
misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for
27
JDDL
“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
28
-2-
1
experience and common sense.” Id. at 1950. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual
2
allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there
3
are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 1951.
4
But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts
5
must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th
6
Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent standards
7
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
8
94 (2007) (per curiam)).
9
II.
Third Amended Complaint
10
In his three-count Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues the following Defendants:
11
GEO Corporation, Doe Corporation, GEO Corporation Correctional Officers John Doe I and
12
John Doe II, and Arizona Department of Corrections Correctional Officers John Doe III and
13
John Doe IV.
14
In Count One, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment regarding
15
a threat to his safety. Plaintiff asserts that he was secured with hand and leg restraints and
16
placed on a bus to be transferred from a prison in Oklahoma to a prison in Arizona. He
17
claims that he immediately informed Defendants John Doe I and II that the hand restraints
18
were too tight and were cutting off the circulation to his hands, but Defendants John Doe I
19
and II ignored his complaints. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants John Doe I and II observed
20
Plaintiff’s wrists change color and become swollen, but continued to ignore Plaintiff’s
21
requests to have the hand restraints loosened. Plaintiff contends that within one hour of
22
entering the bus, Defendants John Doe I and II knew the restraints were too tight, knew “of
23
the substantial risk of serious harm and injury [from] having the hand restrain[t]s too tight,”
24
and knew that there was a risk “to Plaintiff’s safety and/or the possible loss of limb.”
25
Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Defendants John Doe I and II’s deliberate indifference and
26
failure to loosen the hand restraints, Plaintiff has suffered permanent damage and injury to
27
his right hand, wrist and forearm.
28
JDDL
In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment regarding
-3-
1
a threat to his safety. Plaintiff asserts that after he arrived at the Arizona prison, he informed
2
Defendants John Doe III and IV of the injuries to his wrists and hands from the hand
3
restraints being too tight and told them that he had severe pain and a lack of mobility.
4
Plaintiff contends that it was clear that he urgently needed medical attention and that his
5
condition would worsen if he did not receive immediate medical attention. Plaintiff alleges
6
that Defendants John Doe III and IV did not arrange for Plaintiff to be seen by medical
7
personnel, replaced the hand restraints, and placed Plaintiff on another bus to be transferred
8
to a different Arizona prison.
9
Plaintiff asserts that during the bus ride, he informed Defendants John Doe III and IV
10
that he was suffering severe pain and, in retaliation, Defendant John Doe III would jerk the
11
steering wheel of the bus to cause Plaintiff’s body to be “tossed around within the passenger
12
compartment of the bus[,] which caused Plaintiff, and similarly situated inmates, to collide
13
with one-another and those fixtures within the passenger compartment.” Plaintiff also
14
contends that Defendant John Doe IV would direct Defendant John Doe III to jerk the
15
steering wheel in response to Plaintiff’s or other inmates’ requests for medical treatment or
16
to have their hand restraints loosened. Plaintiff claims that Defendants John Doe III and IV
17
were deliberately indifferent to his safety, medical condition, and serious medical needs, and
18
that, as a result, he has suffered permanent damage to his right hand, wrist, and forearm, and
19
nightmares and other psychological trauma.
20
In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants John Doe I, II, III, and IV’s failure
21
to loosen his hand restraints constitutes deliberate indifference in violation of the Fourteenth
22
Amendment.
23
In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment and monetary
24
damages.
25
III.
Failure to State a Claim
26
27
To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a specific
28
JDDL
A.
Defendants GEO Corporation and Doe Corporation
injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link between the
-4-
1
injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377
2
(1976). There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and therefore, a defendant’s
3
position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights
4
does not impose liability. Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S.
5
658, 691-92 (1978); Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 1992); Taylor v. List,
6
880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens
7
and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the
8
official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948.
9
Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants GEO Corporation and Doe Corporation
10
personally participated in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, were aware of a
11
deprivation and failed to act, or formed policies that resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries. He has
12
made no allegations at all against Defendants GEO Corporation and Doe Corporation. Thus,
13
the Court will dismiss without prejudice Defendants GEO Corporation and Doe Corporation.
14
B.
Count Three
15
The Court will dismiss Count Three because it is entirely duplicative of Plaintiff’s
16
allegations in Counts One and Two.
17
IV.
John Doe Defendants
18
Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated deliberate indifference claims in Count One
19
against Defendants John Does I and II and in Count Two against Defendants John Does III
20
and IV. Although Plaintiff has alleged his claim with enough specificity to require an answer
21
from these individuals, the Court will not direct that service be made on the John Doe
22
Defendants at this time. Generally, the use of anonymous type appellations to identify
23
defendants is not favored. Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the
24
plaintiff to include the names of the parties in the action. As a practical matter, it is
25
impossible in most instances for the United States Marshal or his designee to serve a
26
summons and complaint on an anonymous defendant.
27
28
JDDL
Plaintiff has not explained why he has not supplied the names of the John Doe
Defendants. It is unclear why Plaintiff could not identify them from any related incident
-5-
1
reports or logs from the bus trips. It is also unclear why Plaintiff has not been able to obtain
2
their true names since the incident.
3
However, the Court will not dismiss the Third Amended Complaint at this time. See
4
Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (where identity of alleged
5
defendants is unknown prior to filing of complaint, plaintiff should be given an opportunity
6
through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would
7
not uncover the identities or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds). The
8
Court will give Plaintiff 30 days to respond to this Order in a written pleading entitled
9
“Response.” Plaintiff’s Response must include either (1) the name of at least one of the John
10
Doe Defendants or (2) an explanation of what Plaintiff has done to try to learn their names,
11
a description of what discovery he would undertake to learn their names, and the identity of
12
at least one person who could be served with discovery. If Plaintiff fails to timely file his
13
Response, this case will be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice.
14
V.
Warnings
15
A.
Release
16
Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee within 120 days of his release.
17
Also, within 30 days of his release, he must either (1) notify the Court that he intends to pay
18
the balance or (2) show good cause, in writing, why he cannot. Failure to comply may result
19
in dismissal of this action.
20
B.
Address Changes
21
Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule
22
83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other
23
relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this
24
action.
25
26
Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See
27
LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice
28
JDDL
C.
Copies
to Plaintiff.
-6-
1
D.
Possible Dismissal
2
If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these
3
warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,
4
963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to
5
comply with any order of the Court).
6
IT IS ORDERED:
7
(1)
Count Three is dismissed without prejudice.
8
(2)
Defendants GEO Corporation and Doe Corporation are dismissed without
9
prejudice.
10
(3)
Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff must file a Response to this
11
Order that includes either (1) the name of at least one of the John Doe Defendants or (2) an
12
explanation of what Plaintiff has done to try to learn their names, a description of what
13
discovery he would undertake to learn their names, and the identity of at least one person
14
who could be served with discovery.
15
(4)
If Plaintiff fails to file a Response within 30 days, the Clerk of Court must enter
16
a judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to
17
Plaintiff.
18
DATED this 18th day of July, 2012.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JDDL
-7-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?