Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08017/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08017-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TERMPSREF

KM

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kenneth Dale Gann, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-8017-PCT-DGC (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Kenneth Dale Gann, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexWinslow, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court will order Defendants Schriro and

Haggard to answer Count I of the Complaint and will dismiss the remaining claim and

Defendant without prejudice. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

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

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

The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $13.86. The remainder of the fee will be

collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income each time the amount

in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate

Order requiring the appropriate government agency to collect and forward the fees according

to the statutory formula. 

Case 3:08-cv-08017-DGC Document 3 Filed 03/31/08 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TERMPSREF - 2 -

II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

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

a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised

claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

III. Complaint

Plaintiff names the following Defendants in the Complaint: (1) Arizona Department

of Corrections Director Dora Schriro; (2) Herb Haley, Arizona Department of Corrections

Protective Segregation Unit; and (3) Chief of Security Captain Richard Haley, Arizona State

Prison Complex (ASPC)-Winslow.

Plaintiff alleges two grounds for relief. In Count I, Plaintiff claims that his Eighth

Amendment rights were violated when, over the course of three years, Defendants Haley,

Haggard, and Schriro denied him protective segregation. In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that

his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by conditions of confinement in the maximum

security unit. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and money damages.

IV. Failure to State a Claim

A. Defendant Haley

In Count I, Plaintiff states that he first requested to be placed in protective segregation

in 2005 and that he made a second request in 2006. Plaintiff states that Defendant Haley

denied both requests and that Plaintiff was then transferred to ASPC-Douglas.

 A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment in failing to protect one inmate

from another only when two conditions are met. First, the alleged constitutional deprivation

must be, objectively, “sufficiently serious;” the official’s act or omission must result in the

denial of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 834 (1994). Second, the prison official must have a “sufficiently culpable state of

Case 3:08-cv-08017-DGC Document 3 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TERMPSREF - 3 -

mind,” i.e., he must act with deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety. Id. In defining

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

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

drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the

inference.

Id. at 839 (emphasis added).

Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant Haley was aware of a specific risk of serious

harm to Plaintiff and failed to act. Plaintiff’s bare allegation that Defendant Haley denied

his requests for protection is not sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim. The Court

will therefore dismiss Defendant Haley from this action.

Plaintiff also alleges in Count I that after being transferred to ASPC-Douglas in April

2007, he was assaulted by two other inmates. Plaintiff states that after the assault he again

requested protective segregation, but was refused in April 2007 and again in October 2007.

Plaintiff does not identify the individual who denied his protective segregation requests on

these occasions and these allegations therefore fail to state a claim.

B. Count II

In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that the conditions of confinement in the maximum

security units violate his Eighth Amendment rights. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that three

inmates are housed in a small cell and one of the three inmates is required to sleep on the

floor. Plaintiff further states that he receives only three two-hour recreation periods and three

showers per week. Finally, Plaintiff claims that inmates are required to be handcuffed

through the food trap door before the cell door is open. Plaintiff claims that this practice

means he is “always at risk of assault while handcuffed inside the cell, and always at risk of

two on one assaults.” 

Under the Eighth Amendment, punishment may not be “barbarous” nor may it

contravene society’s “evolving standards of decency.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,

346 (1981). Only deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities

are sufficiently grave for an Eighth Amendment violation. Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726,

731 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted). These are “deprivations of essential food, medical

Case 3:08-cv-08017-DGC Document 3 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TERMPSREF - 4 -

care, or sanitation” or “other conditions intolerable for prison confinement.” Rhodes, 452

U.S. at 348. To determine whether a violation has occurred, a Court should consider the

circumstances, nature and duration of a deprivation of these necessities. Johnson, 217 F.3d

at 731. “The more basic the need, the shorter the time it can be withheld.” Hoptowit v. Ray,

682 F.2d 1287, 1259 (9th Cir. 1982). 

An Eighth Amendment claim also requires a showing of deliberate indifference, as

described above. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. 

Plaintiff’s allegations relating to his recreation and shower times are simply

insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim and Plaintiff has alleged no injury as a result

of the shower and recreation schedule. Similarly, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the

number in inmates housed in a single cell are insufficient to state a claim. Allegations of

overcrowding, alone, are insufficient to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See

Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 348. 

Finally, Plaintiff claims regarding handcuffing inmates before the cell door is open

are also insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim. Plaintiff has not alleged a specific

threat to his safety, which Defendants were aware of and which they failed to act on;

Plaintiff does not claim that he was in danger from his particular cell mates and that

handcuffing him in his cell, while a corrections officer was presumably present outside the

cell door, subjected him to serious risk of harm from his cell mates. Plaintiff’s general

allegations about the possibility of being attacked during this handcuffing procedure, without

an allegation of a specific risk of harm, do not state an Eighth Amendment claim. Count II

will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

V. Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required

Plaintiff claims in Count I that Defendant Haggard ordered Plaintiff to be transferred

to general population, even though he knew that if transferred “it was more likely than not

that . . . [Plaintiff] would be violently assaulted or killed.” (Complaint at 3.) Plaintiff further

claims that his transfer to general population was pursuant to a broader policy set by

Case 3:08-cv-08017-DGC Document 3 Filed 03/31/08 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TERMPSREF - 5 -

Defendant Schriro. These allegations adequately state a claim and the Court will require

Defendants Schriro and Haggard to answer Count I.

VI. Warnings

A. Release

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

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

the balance or (2) show good cause, in writing, why he cannot. Failure to comply may result

in dismissal of this action.

B. Address Changes

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

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

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

action.

C. Copies

Plaintiff must serve Defendants, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a copy

of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a certificate

stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, Plaintiff must submit

an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply

may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Plaintiff.

D. Possible Dismissal

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

warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to

comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,filed with the Complaint,

is granted. 

Case 3:08-cv-08017-DGC Document 3 Filed 03/31/08 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TERMPSREF - 6 -

(2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency,

Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $13.86.

(3) Count II and Defendant Haley are dismissed without prejudice.

(4) Defendants Schriro and Haggard must answer Count I.

(5) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including the

Complaint (Doc. #1), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for

Defendants Schriro and Haggard.

(6) Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court

within 20 days of the date of filing of this Order. The United States Marshal will not provide

service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order.

(7) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or

complete service of the Summons and Complaint on a Defendant within 120 days of the

filing of the Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of this Order, whichever is later, the

action may be dismissed as to each Defendant not served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv

16.2(b)(2)(B)(i).

(8) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the Complaint,

and a copy of this Order for future use.

(9) The United States Marshal must notify Defendants of the commencement of

this action and request waiver of service of the summons pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. The notice to Defendants must include a copy of this Order. The

Marshal must immediately file requests for waivers that were returned as undeliverable and

waivers of service of the summons. If a waiver of service of summons is not returned by a

Defendant within 30 days from the date the request for waiver was sent by the Marshal, the

Marshal must:

(a) personally serve copies of the Summons, Complaint, and this Order upon

Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and

(b) within 10 days after personal service is effected, file the return of service

for Defendant, along with evidence of the attempt to secure a waiver of service of the

Case 3:08-cv-08017-DGC Document 3 Filed 03/31/08 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TERMPSREF - 7 -

summons and of the costs subsequently incurred in effecting service upon Defendant.

The costs of service must be enumerated on the return of service form (USM-285) and

must include the costs incurred by the Marshal for photocopying additional copies of

the Summons, Complaint, or this Order and for preparing new process receipt and

return forms (USM-285), if required. Costs of service will be taxed against the

personally served Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

(10) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and Complaint

must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, not the Plaintiff.

(11) Defendants Schriro and Haggard must answer Count I of the Complaint or

otherwise respond by appropriate motion within the time provided by the applicable

provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(12) Any answer or response must state the specific Defendant by name on whose

behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, response, or other motion or paper that

does not identify the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed.

(13) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson pursuant to

Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings.

DATED this 31st day of March, 2008.

Case 3:08-cv-08017-DGC Document 3 Filed 03/31/08 Page 7 of 7