Guillot v. Arpaio et al

Filing 5

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 2 APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Complaint (Doc. 1 ) is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an 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 full details). Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 6/16/14. (Attachments: # 1 Copy of Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint form) (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Pedro Guillot,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

No. CV 14-0456-PHX-RCB (DKD)

vs.

ORDER

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff Pedro Guillot, who is confined in the Maricopa County Durango Jail, has

16

filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an

17

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2).

18

Complaint with leave to amend.

19

I.

The Court will dismiss the

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

20
21

§ 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

22

The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $10.00. The remainder of the fee will

23

be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited to

24

Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C.

25

§ 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government

26

agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula.

27

...

28

JDDL-K

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C.

...

1

II.

Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”

12

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

13

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

at 681.

24
25

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

26

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

27

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

28

JDDL-K

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

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

-2-

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may

5

possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend.

6

III.

7
8

Complaint
Plaintiff names Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio and the Maricopa

County Sheriff’s Office as Defendants in the Complaint.

9

Plaintiff raises three claims for relief. In Count One, Plaintiff claims the food he is

10

given contains less than 2000 calories, there is no drink with dinner, meat is really greasy,

11

portions are inadequate, fruit is dry or rotten, milk in the morning was taken away, and

12

food is always cold.

13

In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges there are four men in a cell, the buildings have

14

asbestos, there are not enough tables and chairs, there is not enough room to move

15

around, and there are only two toilets and two showers for 64 men.

16

In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges air conditioning is always under 68 degrees, that

17

he is not given extra blankets or clothes, there is improper ventilation, and “[they] won’t

18

take you to medical when sick.”

19
20
21
22

Plaintiff seeks money damages.
IV.

Failure to State a Claim
A.

Defendants
1.

Arpaio

23
24

specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link

25

between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362,

26

371-72, 377 (1976).

27

therefore, a defendant’s position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated

28

JDDL-K

To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not impose liability. Monell v. New York City Dep’t

There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and

-3-

1

of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978); Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1067

2

(9th Cir. 1992); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “Because vicarious

3

liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each

4

Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has

5

violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676.

6

Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant Arpaio personally participated in a

7

deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, was aware of a deprivation and failed to

8

act, or formed policies that resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries. Accordingly, Plaintiff has

9

failed to state a claim against Defendant Arpaio.

10

2.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

11

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not a proper defendant. In Arizona, the

12

responsibility of operating jails and caring for prisoners is placed by law upon the sheriff.

13

See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-441(A)(5); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-101. A sheriff’s office is

14

simply an administrative creation of the county sheriff to allow him to carry out his

15

statutory duties and not a “person” amenable to suit pursuant to § 1983. Accordingly, the

16

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office will be dismissed from this action.

17

B.

18

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against persons acting under color of state

19

law who have violated rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and federal

20

law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F.3d 188, 190 (9th Cir.

21

1995). Plaintiff has failed to allege any constitutional or federal-law violations.

Failure to Allege a Constitutional Violation

22

A pretrial detainee’s claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement arises

23

from the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause rather than from the Eighth

24

Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S.

25

520, 535 and n.16 (1979). Nevertheless, the same standards are applied, requiring proof

26

that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference. See Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124,

27

1128 (9th Cir. 1998).

28

JDDL-K

-4-

1

Deliberate indifference is a higher standard than negligence or lack of ordinary

2

due care for the prisoner’s safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994). To

3

state a claim of deliberate indifference, plaintiffs must meet a two-part test. “First, the

4

alleged constitutional deprivation must be, objectively, sufficiently serious”; and the

5

“official’s act or omission must result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of

6

life’s necessities.” Id. at 834 (internal quotations omitted). Second, the prison official

7

must have a “sufficiently culpable state of mind,” i.e., he must act with “deliberate

8

indifference to inmate health or safety.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In defining

9

“deliberate indifference” in this context, the Supreme Court has imposed a subjective

10

test: “the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn

11

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

12

837 (emphasis added).

13

Even if Plaintiff had named proper Defendants, the Court would be unable to

14

construe his claims as raised pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment because he has

15

failed to allege facts showing that a specific, individually named Defendant was aware of

16

a serious risk of harm to Plaintiff and failed to act. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to

17

state a claim in any of his three grounds for relief.

18

V.

Leave to Amend

19

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to

20

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a

21

first amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will

22

mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first amended complaint. If

23

Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the amended

24

complaint and dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff.

25
26

telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name

27

of the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to

28

JDDL-K

If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements

do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of

-5-

1

Plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of

2

that Defendant’s conduct. See Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371-72, 377.

3

Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he names as a Defendant. If

4

Plaintiff fails to affirmatively link the conduct of each named Defendant with the specific

5

injury suffered by Plaintiff, the allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for

6

failure to state a claim.

7

Defendants has violated a constitutional right are not acceptable and will be

8

dismissed.

Conclusory allegations that a Defendant or group of

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count.

13

A first amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

14

963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896

15

F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat an original

16

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

17

in the original complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without

18

prejudice is waived if it is not alleged in a first amended complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa

19

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

20

VI.

Warnings

21

A.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

comply may result in dismissal of this action.

Release

26
27

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

28

JDDL-K

B.

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

Address Changes

-6-

1

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

2

dismissal of this action.

3

C.

4

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

5

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

6

notice to Plaintiff.

Copies

7

D.

8

Because the Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a claim, if Plaintiff

9

fails to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in this Order, the

10

dismissal may count as a “strike” under the “3-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

11

Under the 3-strikes provision, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil

12

judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more

13

prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal

14

in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,

15

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner

16

is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Possible “Strike”

17

E.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

order of the Court).

22

IT IS ORDERED:

Possible Dismissal

23

(1)

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted.

24

(2)

As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government

25
26

fee of $10.00.

27

...

28

JDDL-K

agency, Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing

...

-7-

1

(3)

The Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff

2

has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended complaint in

3

compliance with this Order.

4

(4)

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of

5

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

6

prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

7
8
9

(5)

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

civil rights complaint by a prisoner.
DATED this 16th day of June, 2014.

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

JDDL-K

-8-