Robinson v. Maricopa County Durango Jail et al

Filing 5

ORDER that Plaintiff's 2 APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted. Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee. The 1 Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim and for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Fed eral Rules of Civil Procedure. 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 comply, the Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgmen t of dismissal of this action with prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk must mail Plaintiff a court-approved form for filing a civil rights complaint by a prisoner. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 10/27/2014. (Attachments: # 1 PCR Form)(LFIG)

1

WO

MDR

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Nathan Maurice Robinson,

10
11
12

No. CV 14-02187-PHX-SPL (DKD)

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

Durango Jail, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff Nathan Maurice Robinson, who is confined in the Maricopa County

16

Durango Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint1 (Doc. 1) and an Application to

17

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to

18

amend.

19

I.

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

20

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

21

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

22

The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing fee will be

23

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

1

Plaintiff has failed to allege a jurisdictional basis. However, for purposes of this
Order, the Court will construe his claims as filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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 and for failure to

5

comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but because it may possibly

6

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

7

III.

Complaint

8

In his two-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Defendants Durango Jail and Maricopa

9

County. In Count One, Plaintiff raises a claim regarding his food and meals; in Count

10

Two, he raises a claim regarding his “personal appearance and hygiene.”

11

IV.

Failure to State a Claim

12

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

13

520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey

14

v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a

15

liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the

16

claim that were not initially pled. Id.

17
18

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

19

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

20

371-72, 377 (1976).

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. “A plaintiff must allege facts, not

28

JDDL-K

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

simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the

There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and

-3-

1

deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.

2

1998).

3

A.

4

A municipality may not be sued under § 1983 solely because an injury was

5

inflicted by one of its employees or agents. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d

6

1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). To state a claim against a municipality under § 1983, a

7

plaintiff must allege facts to support that his constitutional rights were violated pursuant

8

to an official policy or custom of the municipality. Cortez v. County of Los Angeles, 294

9

F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91). A § 1983 claim

10

against a municipal defendant “cannot succeed as a matter of law” unless a plaintiff:

11

(1) contends that the municipal defendant maintains a policy or custom pertinent to the

12

plaintiff’s alleged injury; and (2) explains how such policy or custom caused the

13

plaintiff’s injury. Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1080 (9th Cir. 2006).

Defendant Maricopa County

14

Plaintiff makes no allegations against Defendant Maricopa County and, therefore,

15

fails to allege facts to support that Defendant Maricopa County maintained a policy or

16

custom that resulted in the violation of his federal constitutional rights. Accordingly,

17

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendant Maricopa County, and the Court

18

will dismiss without prejudice Defendant Maricopa County.

19

B.

20

Defendant Durango Jail is not a proper Defendant. Section 1983 imposes liability

21

on any “person” who violates an individual’s federal rights while acting under color of

22

state law. Defendant Durango Jail is a building or collection of buildings, not a person

23

or legally created entity capable of being sued.

24

Defendant Durango Jail.

25

V.

Defendant Durango Jail

Therefore, the Court will dismiss

Failure to Allege a Request for Relief

26
27

contain “a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or

28

JDDL-K

Rule 8(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a pleading must

different types of relief.” Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain a request for relief.

-4-

1

Thus, the Court will dismiss the Complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the

2

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3

VI.

Leave to Amend

4

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

5

state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for failure to comply with Rule 8 of

6

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff.

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22
23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

JDDL-K

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

....

-5-

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

failure to state a claim.

5

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

6

dismissed.

Conclusory allegations that a Defendant or group of

7

In addition, if Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he should take note that

8

§ 1983 provides a cause of action against persons acting under color of state law who

9

have violated rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and federal law. 42

10

U.S.C. § 1983; see also Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F.3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995). A

11

pretrial detainee’s claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement arises from the

12

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause rather than from the Eighth Amendment

13

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 and

14

n.16 (1979). Nevertheless, the same standards are applied, requiring proof that the

15

defendant acted with deliberate indifference. See Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128

16

(9th Cir. 1998).

17
18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

JDDL-K

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

837 (emphasis added).

-6-

1

The specific inquiry with respect to pretrial detainees is whether the prison

2

conditions amount to “punishment” without due process in violation of the Fourteenth

3

Amendment. Bell, 441 U.S. at 535. A jail or prison must provide prisoners with

4

“adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.”

5

Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982). However, this does not mean that

6

federal courts can, or should, interfere whenever prisoners are inconvenienced or suffer

7

de minimis injuries. See Bell, 441 U.S. at 539 n.21 (noting that a de minimis level of

8

imposition does not rise to a constitutional violation).

9

confinement rises to the level of a constitutional violation may depend, in part, on the

10

duration of an inmate’s exposure to that condition. See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083,

11

1089 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686-87 (1978)).

Whether a condition of

12

With respect to food, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require “only that

13

prisoners receive food that is adequate to maintain health; it need not be tasty or

14

aesthetically pleasing. ‘The fact that the food occasionally contains foreign objects or

15

sometimes is served cold, while unpleasant, does not amount to a constitutional

16

deprivation.’” LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted)

17

(quoting Hamm v. DeKalb County, 774 F.2d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1985)). Spoiled food

18

and foul water are inadequate to maintain health. Keenan, 83 F.3d at 1091. An inmate

19

may state a claim where he alleges that he is served meals with insufficient calories for

20

long periods of time. LeMaire, 12 F.3d at 1456.

21

VII.

Warnings

22
23

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

24

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

25

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

26

comply may result in dismissal of this action.

27

....

28

JDDL-K

A.

....

Release

-7-

1

B.

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

dismissal of this action.

Address Changes

6

C.

7

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

8

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

9

notice to Plaintiff.

Copies

10

D.

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

Possible “Strike”

20

E.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

order of the Court).

25

IT IS ORDERED:

26

(1)

27

JDDL-K

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

....

28

Possible Dismissal

....

-8-

1

(2)

As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government

2

agency, Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is not assessed an initial partial

3

filing fee.

4

(3)

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

5

failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has 30

6

days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended complaint in compliance with

7

this Order.

8

(4)

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

9

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

10

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

11
12
13

(5)

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

civil rights complaint by a prisoner.
Dated this 27th day of October, 2014.

14
15

Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JDDL-K

-9-