Medina v. Arpaio et al

Filing 16

ORDER - The First Amended Complaint (Doc. 14 ) is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a second amended complaint in compliance with this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (See document for further details). Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 7/8/14. (LAD)

1
2

SC

WO

3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Manuel Luis Medina,

10
11
12

No. CV 13-0572-PHX-DGC (JFM)

Plaintiff,
ORDER

vs.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff Manuel Luis Medina, who is now confined in the Arizona State Prison

16

Complex, Buckley-Blue Unit, in Buckeye, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint

17

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which the Court dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave

18

to amend. 1 (Doc. 1, 8.) Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 14.) The

19

Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim with leave to

20

amend.

21

I.

Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

22

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

23

against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28

24

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff

25

has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon

26

which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is

27
28

JDDL-K

1

Plaintiff was incarcerated in Maricopa County’s Fourth Avenue Jail when he
commenced this case.
-1-

1

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

2

A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

3

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8

4

does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-

5

defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”

6

(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

7

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

8

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

9

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

10

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual

11

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable

12

for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible

13

claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw

14

on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s

15

specific factual allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must

16

assess whether there are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id.

17

at 681.

18

But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed,

19

courts must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,

20

342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less

21

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v.

22

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)).

23
24

facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal

25

of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The

26

Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, but

27

because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave

28

JDDL-K

If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other

to amend.

-2-

1

II.

First Amended Complaint

2

Plaintiff alleges two counts for threat to safety and denial of due process in

3

connection with disciplinary proceedings. Plaintiff sues Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph

4

M. Arpaio and the following current or former employees of the Sheriff’s Office:

5

Disciplinary Facility Commander A4038; Rick Bailey, head of classification personnel;

6

and Detention Officer Burke. Plaintiff seeks injunctive, compensatory, and punitive

7

relief.

8

Portions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, particularly page 3, are only

9

partially legible. Omitting the illegible portions, Plaintiff alleges the following facts,

10

which the Court summarizes chronologically:

11

Avenue Jail on March 2, 2012. (Doc. 14 at 3B.) On January 17, 2013, Plaintiff signed a

12

waiver to be removed from General Population (GP) and to be placed into Protective

13

Segregation (PS) after Plaintiff was informed by jail intelligence staff that a death threat

14

had been made against him by known Mexican Mafia gang-members and upon the

15

recommendation of jail intelligence staff.2 However, after further review, jail officials

16

informed Plaintiff that he was not eligible for placement in Administrative Segregation

17

(AS) at the Lower Buckeye Jail (LBJ), where PS inmates were typically held. 3 The

18

Fourth Avenue Jail, where Plaintiff was being held, did not have a PS pod. Therefore,

19

Classification Officer Bailey raised Plaintiff’s classification to Close Custody (CC) and

20

Plaintiff was placed in a CC pod, specifically, pod 4F100. Each CC inmate was held in a

21

one-person cell for 23 hours a day with an hour out of his cell alone for showers and

22

other tasks; each CC inmate was supposed to be kept separate from other inmates,

23

including other CC inmates. According to Plaintiff, most CC inmates were so designated

24

because of disciplinary infractions that posed risks to other inmates and staff. In addition,

25

at times relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, inmates from the Arizona Department of

Plaintiff was booked into the Fourth

26
27
28

JDDL-K

2
3

Plaintiff alleges that the threats were caught on a recording. (Doc. 14 at 3B.)

Plaintiff subsequently learned that he was not eligible to go to LBJ because of
his history.
-3-

1

Corrections (ADC) were also held in CC pods. Plaintiff contends that Defendants knew

2

that placing a PS inmate in a CC pod could pose a risk to the PS inmate if the inmates

3

were allowed out of their cells at the same time.

4

At some point prior to January 31, 2013, inmate Anthony German was in Pod

5

4F200, which was identical to Plaintiff’s pod 4F100.

6

simultaneously opened all of the cell doors in the pod, which enabled some of the CC

7

inmates to assault German resulting in a severe spinal injury. On or about January 31,

8

2013, an officer, apparently Burke, mistakenly simultaneously opened all of the cell

9

doors in Pod 4F100, although apparently no assaults occurred because of the error.

An officer mistakenly

10

On February 3, 2013, ADC Inmate Cruz, who was a member of a Security Threat

11

Group (STG), specifically the Mexican Mafia, arrived at the jail and was housed in

12

Plaintiff’s pod, 4F100. (Id. at 3C.) Another inmate, Inmate Lechuga, who was also

13

affiliated with the Mexican Mafia, was also housed in Plaintiff’s pod. (Id. at 3C-3D.)

14
15

doors in Pod 4F100 and immediately turned his attention away from Pod 4F100 to look at

16

a computer. Plaintiff and other inmates in the pod began leaving their cells without

17

realizing that all of the cells had been simultaneously opened. As they realized the error,

18

some of the inmates attempted to alert Burke so that Burke would close the cell doors,

19

but Burke, who was looking in another direction, did not see them.

20

occurring, Inmate Cruz, who had been in cell 4F22, began assaulting another inmate.

21

Inmate Lechuga, who was two doors down from Plaintiff’s cell, joined in the assault of

22

that inmate. Lechuga then saw Plaintiff. Lechuga raised his hand to attack Plaintiff, but

23

Plaintiff “defend[ed]” himself and prevented Lechuga from pushing Plaintiff back into

24

his cell where Plaintiff might have been trapped with Lechuga. (Id. at 3A.) At about this

25

point, Burke saw what was happening in the pod and summoned back-up. Two or three

26

minutes later, back-up officers arrived in force and used tasers to stop Cruz. Other

27

officers came “running up the steps to subdue the remaining inmates, [and] inmate

28

JDDL-K

On February 11, 2013, Burke again erroneously simultaneously opened all the cell

Lechuga was ordered to the [ground] as he did comply [sic].” (Id.) Plaintiff waited by

-4-

As this was

1

his cell for the door to be re-opened. 4 Plaintiff suffered injuries to his left shoulder, lower

2

back, and face as well as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

3

grievances, Sergeant Mank told inmates that there was nothing that could be done about

4

housing PS inmates in CC pods because there was no room to house PS inmates

5

separately in the Fourth Avenue Jail. Plaintiff was apparently issued a disciplinary

6

charge. Facility Commander A4038, who was in charge of disciplinary appeals, found

7

Plaintiff guilty of fighting, although he acknowledged that the doors were not supposed to

8

have been opened simultaneously. (Id. at 3E-3F.)

In response to

9

Plaintiff contends that Burke knew of the risk of inmate assaults if all cells in the

10

pod were simultaneously opened, based on prior assaults in such circumstances, and had

11

been trained to open cell doors properly. According to Plaintiff, there are “a lot of

12

intricate buttons to push to operate each door correctly and prevent assaults, deaths, and

13

other incidents from occurring,” about which officers receive extensive training. (Id.)

14

Plaintiff contends that Classification Officer Bailey knew that housing PS inmates in a

15

CC pod could pose a serious risk of assault or injury to a PS inmate by CC inmates, if an

16

opportunity arose. Plaintiff further contends that Bailey knew that PS inmates, such as

17

German, had previously been assaulted by CC inmates when inadvertently allowed out of

18

their cells at the same time as PS inmates. According to Plaintiff, Bailey allowed “high

19

Close Custody inmates to be housed amongst [PS] inmates which created and still is a

20

high risk of housing [PS] inmates with [CC] inmates[.]” (Id. at 3D.)

21

Plaintiff contends that Arpaio is chief custodian and is responsible for providing

22

safe conditions. Plaintiff contends that Facility Commander A4038 acknowledged that

23

the doors should not have been opened simultaneously and knew of the risks to inmates

24

when such occurrences happen, but failed to prevent the February 11, 2013 incident.

25

Plaintiff also asserts that he was subjected to the type of confinement ordinarily

26

imposed for inmates being punished for disciplinary infractions, and that his placement in

27
28

JDDL-K

4

Plaintiff does not make clear when his cell door was closed, but apparently
sometime after he avoided being pushed into his cell by Lechuga.
-5-

1

a CC pod, rather than a PS pod, resulted in restrictions of privileges afforded other PS

2

and GP inmates. Plaintiff sought placement in a PS pod, but instead was placed in a CC

3

pod because the Fourth Avenue Jail lacked a PS pod.

4

classification to CC, which resulted in Plaintiff being locked down 23 hours a day, celled

5

alone, and denied privileges afforded to other PS and GP inmates. He contends that

6

housing him in a CC pod with inmates who were being held there for disciplinary

7

infractions amounted to punishment, where Plaintiff remained in the CC pod for six

8

months.

9

allegedly punitive conditions in the CC pod.

10

III.

Bailey increased Plaintiff’s

Plaintiff contends that he was denied due process before being placed in

Failure to State a Claim

11

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts supporting that (1) the

12

conduct about which he complains was committed by a person acting under the color of

13

state law and (2) the conduct deprived him of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

14

Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989). Negligence is not sufficient to

15

state a claim under § 1983. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986). In

16

addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury as a result of the conduct

17

of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link between the injury and

18

the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).

19

A.

20

Plaintiff seeks relief against Sheriff Arpaio and Facility Commander A4038.

21

Arpaio and Facility Commander A4038

While each may be sued under § 1983, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against either.

22
23

conclusions [to] show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his

24

civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). For an

25

individual to be liable in his official capacity, a plaintiff must allege that the official acted

26

as a result of a policy, practice, or custom. See Cortez v. County of Los Angeles, 294 F.3d

27

1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2001). Further, there is no respondeat superior liability under

28

JDDL-K

To state a claim against a defendant, “[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply

§1983, so a defendant’s position as the supervisor of someone who allegedly violated a

-6-

1

plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not make him liable. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,

2

436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A

3

supervisor in his individual capacity “is only liable for constitutional violations of his

4

subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the

5

violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. In addition,

6

where a defendant’s only involvement in allegedly unconstitutional conduct is the denial

7

of administrative grievances, the failure to intervene on a prisoner’s behalf to remedy the

8

alleged unconstitutional behavior does not amount to active unconstitutional behavior for

9

purposes of § 1983. See Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999); accord

10

Proctor v. Applegate, 661 F.Supp.2d 743, 765 (W.D. Mich. 2009); Stocker v. Warden,

11

No. 1:07-CV-00589, 2009 WL 981323, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2009); Mintun v.

12

Blades, No. CV-06-139, 2008 WL 711636, at *7 (D. Idaho Mar. 14, 2008); see also

13

Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 751 (6th Cir. 2006) (a plaintiff must allege

14

that a supervisor defendant did more than play a passive role in an alleged violation or

15

mere tacit approval thereof; a plaintiff must allege that the supervisor defendant somehow

16

encouraged or condoned the actions of their subordinates).

17
18

As discussed above, that is not a basis for liability under § 1983. Plaintiff predicates

19

liability against Facility Commander A4038 based on the denial of Plaintiff’s disciplinary

20

appeal.

21

constitutional rights or facts to support that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated

22

pursuant to a policy, practice, or custom that was promulgated, endorsed, or condoned by

23

Arpaio. As noted above, the denial of an appeal, absent more, is not sufficient to state a

24

claim against A4038 and Plaintiff does not otherwise allege that his constitutional rights

25

were violated pursuant to a policy, practice, or custom promulgated, endorsed, or

26

condoned by Facility Commander A4038. For the above reasons, Plaintiff fails to state a

27

claim against Arpaio or Facility Commander A4038 and they will be dismissed.

28

JDDL-K

Plaintiff predicates liability against Arpaio based solely on respondeat superior.

///

Plaintiff fails to allege facts to support that Arpaio directly violated his

-7-

1

B.

2

Plaintiff designates Count I as a claim for threat to safety. To state a claim under

3

§ 1983 for failure to protect or threats to safety, an inmate must allege facts to show that

4

he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of harm and that jail

5

officials were “deliberately indifferent” to those risks. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

6

832-33 (1994). To adequately allege deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must allege facts

7

to support that a defendant knew of, but disregarded, an excessive risk to inmate safety.

8

Id. at 837. That is, “the official must both [have been] aware of facts from which the

9

inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed], and he must

10

Count I

also [have] draw[n] the inference.” Id.

11

Plaintiff appears to contend that Bailey’s classification of him to CC, rather than

12

PS, posed a substantial threat to his safety where CC inmates sometimes were

13

inadvertently simultaneously released from their cells. Plaintiff also appears to contend

14

that the simultaneous opening of cell doors in CC pods posed a threat to his safety.

15

Plaintiff describes three instances when CC pod doors were opened inadvertently. In one

16

instance, Inmate German was allegedly severely injured. In the second, no inmate was

17

injured. In the third, Inmate Lechuga allegedly assaulted Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not

18

alleged facts to show that the risks of simultaneous, inadvertent opening of CC cell doors

19

posed a substantial risk to Plaintiff’s safety. While Plaintiff cites three occurrences

20

during January and February 2013, Plaintiff does not allege any further occurrences

21

during the six months that remained in CC at the Jail.

22

Even if Plaintiff sufficiently alleged facts to support a substantial threat to his

23

safety, Plaintiff has not alleged facts to support that Bailey or Burke acted with deliberate

24

indifference to that risk. Plaintiff has not alleged that Burke’s opening of CC cell doors

25

on February 11, 2013, or on any other occasion, was anything but inadvertent. Moreover,

26

Plaintiff alleges no further occurrences after the February 11, 2013 incident.

27
28

JDDL-K

Plaintiff also has failed to allege facts showing that Bailey’s classification of
Plaintiff to CC posed a substantial threat to his safety. For example, Plaintiff does not

-8-

1

contend that he would have been safer in GP, and Plaintiff’s preference to be held in PS

2

does not override jail officials’ responsibility to protect other PS inmates. Accordingly,

3

Plaintiff fails to state a claim for threat to safety in Count I and it will be dismissed.

4

C.

5

Plaintiff designates Count II as a claim for denial of due process in connection

6

with disciplinary proceedings. Pretrial detainees have a substantive due process right

7

against restrictions that amount to punishment for criminal offenses.

8

Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Salerno, 481

9

U.S. 739, 746 (1987)); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979); Redman v. County of

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

JDDL-K

Count II

Valdez v.

San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1440-41 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc)). This right is violated if
restrictions are “imposed for the purpose of punishment.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 535. For
particular governmental action to constitute punishment, the action must cause the
detainee to suffer some harm or disability, and the purpose of the action must be to
punish the detainee. Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020,1029 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Bell,
441 U.S. at 538).

But jail officials are entitled to impose restrictions to effect

confinement, and detention will necessarily affect a detainee’s ability to live as
comfortably as he might like; a de minimis level of imposition is permissible. 5 Bell, 441

5

Thus:
Not every disability imposed during pretrial detention amounts to
“punishment” in the constitutional sense, however. Once the Government
has exercised its conceded authority to detain a person pending trial, it
obviously is entitled to employ devices that are calculated to effectuate this
detention. Traditionally, this has meant confinement in a facility which, no
matter how modern or how antiquated, results in restricting the movement
of a detainee in a manner in which he would not be restricted if he simply
were free to walk the streets pending trial. Whether it be called a jail, a
prison, or a custodial center, the purpose of the facility is to detain. Loss of
freedom of choice and privacy are inherent incidents of confinement in
such a facility. And the fact that such detention interferes with the
detainee’s understandable desire to live as comfortably as possible and with
as little restraint as possible during confinement does not convert the
conditions or restrictions of detention into “punishment.”
-9-

1

U.S. at 539 n.21. There is no constitutional infringement, however, if restrictions are

2

“but an incident of some other legitimate government purpose.”

3

circumstance, governmental restrictions are permissible. Salerno, 481 U.S. at 747.

Id.

In such a

4

Plaintiff alleges that after he requested assignment to PS based upon threats

5

against him, he was denied PS based on his history. Bailey instead raised Plaintiff’s

6

classification to CC, which resulted in Plaintiff being housed separately from other

7

inmates, which reduced the possibility of an assault on Plaintiff by other inmates.

8

Plaintiff fails to allege facts to show that he was assigned to CC as punishment, rather

9

than for legitimate detention purposes: Plaintiff’s allegations reflect that he was placed in

10

CC for his protection. While privileges for inmates held in CC were fewer than they

11

would have been if he were eligible for placement in PS elsewhere, that did not convert

12

his placement in CC into punishment. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against

13

Bailey based on his placement in CC.

14

Plaintiff also alleges that he was charged with a disciplinary infraction for fighting

15

stemming from the February 11, 2013 incident, which Plaintiff contends was merely self-

16

defense. Plaintiff fails to allege whether or how he was sanctioned as a result of the

17

disciplinary action. Plaintiff does not allege any change in the conditions to which he

18

was already subject by virtue of his placement in the CC pod for his safety, nor does he

19

allege that any such sanction rose to the level of punishment for the criminal offenses

20

with which he was charged. Even if he had, Plaintiff fails to allege facts to support that

21

he was denied any procedural protection prior to being found guilty of fighting. For these

22

reasons, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for denial of due process based on his placement in

23

CC or based on the subsequent disciplinary charge.

24

Plaintiff also appears to be attempting to assert a claim for denial of

25

constitutionally adequate conditions of confinement and violation of equal protection

26

where PS inmates at the Fourth Avenue Jail were treated differently and had fewer

27

privileges than PS inmates at the LBJ Jail.

28
Bell, 441 U.S. at 537.
JDDL-K

- 10 -

A pretrial detainee’s claim for

1

unconstitutional conditions of confinement arises under the Fourteenth Amendment Due

2

Process Clause rather than the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual

3

punishment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 and n.16 (1979). Nevertheless, the same

4

standards are applied, requiring proof that the defendant acted with deliberate

5

indifference. See Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).

6

To state a claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement, a plaintiff must

7

allege that a defendant’s acts or omissions have deprived the inmate of “the minimal

8

civilized measure of life’s necessities” and that the defendant acted with deliberate

9

indifference to an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082,

10

1087 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834); see Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-

11

Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2002). That is, a plaintiff must allege a

12

constitutional deprivation that is objectively “sufficiently serious” to result in the denial

13

of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.”

14

Whether conditions of confinement rise to the level of a constitutional violation may

15

depend, in part, on the duration of an inmate’s exposure to those conditions. Keenan v.

16

Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678,

17

686-87 (1978)).

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834.

18
19

culpable state of mind,” i.e., that the official acted with deliberate indifference to inmate

20

health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Deliberate indifference is a higher standard

21

than negligence or lack of ordinary due care for the prisoner’s safety. Id. at 835. In

22

defining “deliberate indifference,” the Supreme Court has imposed a subjective test, “the

23

official must both be aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a

24

substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837.

25

“‘The circumstances, nature, and duration of a deprivation . . . must be considered in

26

determining whether a constitutional violation has occurred.’” Hearns v. Terhune, 413,

27

F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir.

28

JDDL-K

A plaintiff must also allege facts supporting that the jail official had a “sufficiently

2000)).

- 11 -

1

Plaintiff alleges that he was held in a cell alone, was allowed to leave his cell for

2

an hour each day to shower, clean his cell, make telephone calls and the like. He

3

complains that mentally ill inmates sometimes defecated or urinated in the hallways and

4

that it took days for staff to clean the hallways. Plaintiff does not allege how frequently

5

such issues arose, nor does he allege that he brought the issue to the attention of any jail

6

staff-member and that staff-member’s response. Plaintiff also complains of the noise

7

caused by mentally ill inmates, but he does not describe the frequency or duration of such

8

noise. Assuming such conditions rose to the level of being unconstitutional, Plaintiff

9

fails to allege facts to support that any named Defendant knew that such conditions posed

10

an excessive risk to Plaintiff and that such Defendant nevertheless failed to act to

11

alleviate the problem. Plaintiff thus fails to state a claim for unconstitutional conditions

12

of confinement against any Defendant.

13

Plaintiff contends that PS inmates at the Fourth Avenue Jail were treated

14

differently than PS inmates at the LBJ Jail, where PS inmates were afforded more

15

privileges. Generally, “[t]o state a claim . . . for a violation of the Equal Protection

16

Clause . . . [,] a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to

17

discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class.” Barren v.

18

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff has not alleged he is a

19

member of a protected class.

20
21

claims brought by a ‘class of one,’ where the plaintiff alleges that [he] has been

22

intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational

23

basis for the difference in treatment.” Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562,

24

564 (2000); see also SeaRiver Maritime Financial Holdings, Inc. v. Mineta, 309 F.3d

25

662, 679 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff fails to state a claim under this standard. He does not

26

allege facts to support that he was treated differently than other similarly-situated

27

individuals or that there was no rational basis for treating him differently. Plaintiff

28

JDDL-K

The United States Supreme Court has also recognized “successful equal protection

acknowledges that other PS pretrial detainees were held in CC pods under analogous

- 12 -

1

conditions to his own. He does not allege that other PS inmates with histories similar to

2

his own were nevertheless held at LBJ, nor does he allege that other PS inmates in CC

3

pods were afforded more privileges than Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s allegations also reflect a

4

rational basis for not placing him in PS at the LBJ facility, i.e., Plaintiff’s history and

5

potential threat posed if he were held at LBJ. Thus, Plaintiff also fails to state an equal

6

protection claim.

7

IV.

Leave to Amend

8

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed

9

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff

10

may submit a second amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The

11

Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a second

12

amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may

13

strike the second amended complaint and dismiss this action without further notice to

14

Plaintiff.

15

Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “Second

16

Amended Complaint.” The second amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in

17

its entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original

18

Complaint or First Amended Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one

19

claim per count.

20
21

Amended Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal

22

Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After

23

amendment, the Court will treat the original Complaint and First Amended Complaint as

24

nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the

25

original complaint or first amended complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was

26

dismissed without prejudice is waived if it is not alleged in a second amended complaint.

27

Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

28

JDDL-K

A second amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint and First

/

/

/

- 13 -

1

V.

Warnings

2

A.

3

Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee within 120 days of his

4

release. Also, within 30 days of his release, he must either (1) notify the Court that he

5

intends to pay the balance or (2) show good cause, in writing, why he cannot. Failure to

6

comply may result in dismissal of this action.

Release

7

B.

8

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with

9

Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion

10

for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in

11

dismissal of this action.

Address Changes

12

C.

13

Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See

14

LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further

15

notice to Plaintiff.

Copies

16

D.

17

Because the First Amended Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a

18

claim, if Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint correcting the deficiencies

19

identified in this Order, the dismissal may count as a “strike” under the “3-strikes”

20

provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Under the 3-strikes provision, a prisoner may not bring

21

a civil action or appeal a civil judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the

22

prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,

23

brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the

24

grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

25

granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28

26

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Possible “Strike”

27
28

JDDL-K

E.

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including

Possible Dismissal

- 14 -

1

these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik, 963

2

F.2d at 1260-61 (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any

3

order of the Court).

4

IT IS ORDERED:

5

(1)

The First Amended Complaint (Doc. 14) is dismissed for failure to state a

6

claim. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a second amended

7

complaint in compliance with this Order.

8

(2)

If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint within 30 days, the

9

Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action

10

with prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C.

11

§ 1915(g).

12

(3)

13
14

The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff a court-approved form for filing a

civil rights complaint by a prisoner.
Dated this 8th day of July, 2014.

15
16
17

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JDDL-K

- 15 -

Instructions for a Prisoner Filing a Civil Rights Complaint
in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
1. Who May Use This Form. The civil rights complaint form is designed to help incarcerated
persons prepare a complaint seeking relief for a violation of their federal civil rights. These
complaints typically concern, but are not limited to, conditions of confinement. This form should
not be used to challenge your conviction or sentence. If you want to challenge a state conviction
or sentence, you should file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus by a
person in state custody. If you want to challenge a federal conviction or sentence, you should file
a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate sentence in the federal court that entered the judgment.

2. The Form. Local Rule of Civil Procedure (LRCiv) 3.4(a) provides that complaints by
incarcerated persons must be filed on the court-approved form. The form must be typed or
neatly handwritten. The form must be completely filled in to the extent applicable. All questions
must be answered clearly and concisely in the appropriate space on the form. If needed, you may
attach additional pages, but no more than fifteen additional pages, of standard letter-sized paper.
You must identify which part of the complaint is being continued and number all pages. If you do
not fill out the form properly, you will be asked to submit additional or corrected information, which
may delay the processing of your action. You do not need to cite law.
3. Your Signature. You must tell the truth and sign the form. If you make a false statement of a
material fact, you may be prosecuted for perjury.
4. The Filing and Administrative Fees. The total fees for this action are $400.00 ($350.00 filing fee
plus $50.00 administrative fee). If you are unable to immediately pay the fees, you may request
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Please review the “Information for Prisoners Seeking Leave
to Proceed with a (Non-Habeas) Civil Action in Federal Court In Forma Pauperis Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915” for additional instructions.
5. Original and Judge’s Copy. You must send an original plus one copy of your complaint and of
any other documents submitted to the Court. You must send one additional copy to the Court if you
wish to have a file-stamped copy of the document returned to you. All copies must be identical to
the original. Copies may be legibly handwritten.
6. Where to File. You should file your complaint in the division where you were confined when
your rights were allegedly violated. See LRCiv 5.1(a) and 77.1(a). If you were confined in
Maricopa, Pinal, Yuma, La Paz, or Gila County, file in the Phoenix Division. If you were confined
in Apache, Navajo, Coconino, Mohave, or Yavapai County, file in the Prescott Division. If you
were confined in Pima, Cochise, Santa Cruz, Graham, or Greenlee County, file in the Tucson
Division. Mail the original and one copy of the complaint with the $400 filing and
administrative fees or the application to proceed in forma pauperis to:

Revised 5/1/2013

1

Phoenix & Prescott Divisions:
OR
U.S. District Court Clerk
U.S. Courthouse, Suite 130
401 West Washington Street, SPC 10
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2119

Tucson Division:
U.S. District Court Clerk
U.S. Courthouse, Suite 1500
405 West Congress Street
Tucson, Arizona 85701-5010

7. Change of Address. You must immediately notify the Court and the defendants in writing of any
change in your mailing address. Failure to notify the Court of any change in your mailing
address may result in the dismissal of your case.
8. Certificate of Service. You must furnish the defendants with a copy of any document you submit
to the Court (except the initial complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis). Each
original document (except the initial complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis) must
include a certificate of service on the last page of the document stating the date a copy of the
document was mailed to the defendants and the address to which it was mailed. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 5(a), (d). Any document received by the Court that does not include a certificate of service may
be stricken. A certificate of service should be in the following form:
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed
this
(month, day, year) to:
Name:
Address:
Attorney for Defendant(s)
(Signature)
9. Amended Complaint. If you need to change any of the information in the initial complaint, you
must file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must be written on the court-approved
civil rights complaint form. You may file one amended complaint without leave (permission) of
Court before any defendant has answered your original complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). After
any defendant has filed an answer, you must file a motion for leave to amend and lodge (submit) a
proposed amended complaint. LRCiv 15.1. In addition, an amended complaint may not incorporate
by reference any part of your prior complaint. LRCiv 15.1(a)(2). Any allegations or defendants
not included in the amended complaint are considered dismissed. All amended complaints are
subject to screening under the Prison Litigation Reform Act; screening your amendment will take
additional processing time.
10. Exhibits. You should not submit exhibits with the complaint or amended complaint. Instead,
the relevant information should be paraphrased. You should keep the exhibits to use to support or
oppose a motion to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment, or at trial.
11. Letters and Motions. It is generally inappropriate to write a letter to any judge or the staff of
any judge. The only appropriate way to communicate with the Court is by filing a written pleading
or motion.
2

12. Completing the Civil Rights Complaint Form.
HEADING:
1. Your Name. Print your name, prison or inmate number, and institutional mailing address
on the lines provided.
2. Defendants. If there are four or fewer defendants, print the name of each. If you name
more than four defendants, print the name of the first defendant on the first line, write the
words “and others” on the second line, and attach an additional page listing the names of all
of the defendants. Insert the additional page after page 1 and number it “1-A” at the bottom.
3. Jury Demand. If you want a jury trial, you must write “JURY TRIAL DEMANDED” in
the space below “CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT BY A PRISONER.” Failure to do so may
result in the loss of the right to a jury trial. A jury trial is not available if you are seeking
only injunctive relief.
Part A. JURISDICTION:
1. Nature of Suit. Mark whether you are filing the complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for state, county, or city defendants; “Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents” for
federal defendants; or “other.” If you mark “other,” identify the source of that authority.
2. Location. Identify the institution and city where the alleged violation of your rights
occurred.
3. Defendants. Print all of the requested information about each of the defendants in the
spaces provided. If you are naming more than four defendants, you must provide the
necessary information about each additional defendant on separate pages labeled “2-A,” “2B,” etc., at the bottom. Insert the additional page(s) immediately behind page 2.
Part B. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS:
You must identify any other lawsuit you have filed in either state or federal court while you
were a prisoner. Print all of the requested information about each lawsuit in the spaces provided.
If you have filed more than three lawsuits, you must provide the necessary information about each
additional lawsuit on a separate page. Label the page(s) as “2-A,” “2-B,” etc., at the bottom of the
page and insert the additional page(s) immediately behind page 2.
Part C. CAUSE OF ACTION:
You must identify what rights each defendant violated. The form provides space to allege
three separate counts (one violation per count). If you are alleging more than three counts, you
must provide the necessary information about each additional count on a separate page. Number
the additional pages “5-A,” “5-B,” etc., and insert them immediately behind page 5. Remember that
you are limited to a total of fifteen additional pages.

3

1. Counts. You must identify which civil right was violated. You may allege the violation
of only one civil right per count.
2. Issue Involved. Check the box that most closely identifies the issue involved in your
claim. You may check only one box per count. If you check the box marked “Other,” you
must identify the specific issue involved.
3. Supporting Facts. After you have identified which civil right was violated, you must state
the supporting facts. Be as specific as possible. You must state what each individual
defendant did to violate your rights. If there is more than one defendant, you must identify
which defendant did what act. You also should state the date(s) on which the act(s)
occurred, if possible.
4. Injury. State precisely how you were injured by the alleged violation of your rights.
5. Administrative Remedies. You must exhaust any available administrative remedies
before you file a civil rights complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Consequently, you should
disclose whether you have exhausted the inmate grievance procedures or administrative
appeals for each count in your complaint. If the grievance procedures were not available for
any of your counts, fully explain why on the lines provided.
Part D. REQUEST FOR RELIEF:
Print the relief you are seeking in the space provided.
SIGNATURE:
You must sign your name and print the date you signed the complaint. Failure to sign the
complaint will delay the processing of your action. Unless you are an attorney, you may not bring
an action on behalf of anyone but yourself.

FINAL NOTE
You should follow these instructions carefully. Failure to do so may result in your complaint
being stricken or dismissed. All questions must be answered concisely in the proper space on the
form. If you need more space, you may attach no more than fifteen additional pages. But the form
must be completely filled in to the extent applicable. If you attach additional pages, be sure to
identify which section of the complaint is being continued and number the pages.

4

Name and Prisoner/Booking Number

Place of Confinement

Mailing Address

City, State, Zip Code

(Failure to notify the Court of your change of address may result in dismissal of this action.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

(Full Name of Plaintiff)

Plaintiff,
vs.

(1)
(Full Name of Defendant)

(2)
(3)
(4)
Defendant(s).

G

Check if there are additional Defendants and attach page 1-A listing them.

)
, )
)
)
) CASE NO.
)
(To be supplied by the Clerk)
, )
)
, )
)
CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
, )
BY A PRISONER
)
, )
G Original Complaint
G First Amended Complaint
)
)
G Second Amended Complaint

A. JURISDICTION
1.

2.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to:
G 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a); 42 U.S.C. § 1983
G 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
G Other:

.

Institution/city where violation occurred:

.

Revised 5/1/2013

1

550/555

B. DEFENDANTS
1.

Name of first Defendant:

. The first Defendant is employed as:
at

.

(Position and Title)
2.

(Institution)
. The second Defendant is employed as:

Name of second Defendant:
at

.

(Position and Title)
3.

(Institution)

Name of third Defendant:

. The third Defendant is employed as:
at

.

(Position and Title)
4.

(Institution)

Name of fourth Defendant:
at
(Position and Title)

. The fourth Defendant is employed as:
.
(Institution)

If you name more than four Defendants, answer the questions listed above for each additional Defendant on a separate page.

C. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS
1.

Have you filed any other lawsuits while you were a prisoner?

2.

If yes, how many lawsuits have you filed?

G Yes

G No

. Describe the previous lawsuits:

a. First prior lawsuit:
1. Parties:
v.
2. Court and case number:
3. Result: (Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed? Is it still pending?)

.
.

b. Second prior lawsuit:
v.
1. Parties:
2. Court and case number:
3. Result: (Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed? Is it still pending?)

.
.

c. Third prior lawsuit:
1. Parties:
v.
2. Court and case number:
3. Result: (Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed? Is it still pending?)

.
.

If you filed more than three lawsuits, answer the questions listed above for each additional lawsuit on a separate page.

2

D. CAUSE OF ACTION

1.

COUNT I
State the constitutional or other federal civil right that was violated:
.

2.

Count I. Identify the issue involved. Check only one. State additional issues in separate counts.
G Basic necessities
G Mail
G Access to the court
G Medical care
G Disciplinary proceedings
G Property
G Exercise of religion
G Retaliation
G Excessive force by an officer G Threat to safety G Other:

.

3. Supporting Facts. State as briefly as possible the FACTS supporting Count I. Describe exactly what each
Defendant did or did not do that violated your rights. State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal
authority or arguments.

.
4.

Injury. State how you were injured by the actions or inactions of the Defendant(s).

.
5.

Administrative Remedies:
a. Are there any administrative remedies (grievance procedures or administrative appeals) available at your
G Yes G No
institution?
b. Did you submit a request for administrative relief on Count I?
G Yes G No
c. Did you appeal your request for relief on Count I to the highest level?
G Yes G No
d. If you did not submit or appeal a request for administrative relief at any level, briefly explain why you
did not.
.
3

1.

COUNT II
State the constitutional or other federal civil right that was violated:
.

2.

Count II. Identify the issue involved. Check only one. State additional issues in separate counts.
G Basic necessities
G Mail
G Access to the court
G Medical care
G Disciplinary proceedings
G Property
G Exercise of religion
G Retaliation
G Excessive force by an officer G Threat to safety G Other:

.

3. Supporting Facts. State as briefly as possible the FACTS supporting Count II. Describe exactly what each
Defendant did or did not do that violated your rights. State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal
authority or arguments.

.
4.

Injury. State how you were injured by the actions or inactions of the Defendant(s).

.
5.

Administrative Remedies.
a. Are there any administrative remedies (grievance procedures or administrative appeals) available at your
institution?
G Yes G No
b. Did you submit a request for administrative relief on Count II?
G Yes G No
c. Did you appeal your request for relief on Count II to the highest level?
G Yes G No
d. If you did not submit or appeal a request for administrative relief at any level, briefly explain why you
did not.
.
4

1.

COUNT III
State the constitutional or other federal civil right that was violated:
.

2.

Count III. Identify the issue involved. Check only one. State additional issues in separate counts.
G Basic necessities
G Mail
G Access to the court
G Medical care
G Disciplinary proceedings
G Property
G Exercise of religion
G Retaliation
G Excessive force by an officer G Threat to safety G Other:

.

3. Supporting Facts. State as briefly as possible the FACTS supporting Count III. Describe exactly what each
Defendant did or did not do that violated your rights. State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal
authority or arguments.

.
4.

Injury. State how you were injured by the actions or inactions of the Defendant(s).

.
5.

Administrative Remedies.
a. Are there any administrative remedies (grievance procedures or administrative appeals) available at your
G Yes G No
institution?
b. Did you submit a request for administrative relief on Count III?
G Yes G No
c. Did you appeal your request for relief on Count III to the highest level?
G Yes G No
d. If you did not submit or appeal a request for administrative relief at any level, briefly explain why you
did not.
.

If you assert more than three Counts, answer the questions listed above for each additional Count on a separate page.

5

E. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
State the relief you are seeking:

.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on
DATE

SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF

(Name and title of paralegal, legal assistant, or
other person who helped prepare this complaint)

(Signature of attorney, if any)

(Attorney’s address & telephone number)

ADDITIONAL PAGES
All questions must be answered concisely in the proper space on the form. If you need more space, you may attach
no more than fifteen additional pages. But the form must be completely filled in to the extent applicable. If you
attach additional pages, be sure to identify which section of the complaint is being continued and number all pages.

6