Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08136/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08136-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

JDDL-K 

WO ASH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Hector Velasquez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-08136-PCT-SPL (BSB) 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Hector Velasquez, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexLewis in Buckeye, Arizona, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The 

Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 

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 $37.86. The remainder of the fee will 

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

Plaintiff’s trust account 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 3:14-cv-08136-SPL--BSB Document 6 Filed 09/05/14 Page 1 of 9
- 2 - 

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 

JDDL-K 

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). 

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

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

does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

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

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

at 681. 

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

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

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

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

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

Case 3:14-cv-08136-SPL--BSB Document 6 Filed 09/05/14 Page 2 of 9
- 3 - 

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 

JDDL-K 

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

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

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

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

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

III. Complaint 

 In his three-count Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants: Charles Ryan, the 

Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADOC”); “John Doe,” the Deputy 

Warden at the Arizona State Prison Complex-Kingman (“ASPC-Kingman”); and 

multiple John/Jane Does, who are described as classification officers at ADOC’s Central 

Office. For his alleged injuries, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of an addition 

to his “Do Not House” list, as well as monetary relief and punitive damages. 

 In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on October 2, 2012, he was transferred to 

ASPC-Kingman, where, within hours, he was beaten by four or five other inmates. As a 

result of the beating, Plaintiff was in a coma for 12 days, suffered brain trauma, has had 

to re-learn how to walk and talk, and will require therapy for the remainder of his life. 

Plaintiff alleges that the beating occurred because he was placed in a unit with his victim, 

and that the victim should have been on Plaintiff'’s “Do Not House” list. Plaintiff further 

alleges that he was “almost” assaulted again while he was in the infirmary. 

 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ryan is liable because, “even 

though [Defendant Ryan] was not told personally [about] the situation,” his staff failed to 

ensure Plaintiff’s safety by allowing Plaintiff to be housed in the same unit as his victim, 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Doe, the Deputy Warden at ASPCKingman, is liable because, “even though [Defendant Doe] was not directly advised,” his 

staff failed to ensure Plaintiff’s safety by allowing Plaintiff to be housed in the same unit 

as his victim, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

Case 3:14-cv-08136-SPL--BSB Document 6 Filed 09/05/14 Page 3 of 9
- 4 - 

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 

JDDL-K 

 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that the John/Jane Doe Defendant classification 

officers are liable because they failed to ensure Plaintiff’s safety by allowing Plaintiff to 

be housed in the same unit as his victim, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim

 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 

(2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities 

and (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th 

Cir. 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 

1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific 

injury as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an 

affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 

423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 

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

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

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

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

claim that were not initially pled. Id. 

 Additionally, to state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they 

suffered a specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an 

affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. 

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). There is no respondeat superior liability 

under § 1983, and therefore, a defendant’s position as the supervisor of persons who 

allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not impose liability. Monell v. 

New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978); Hamilton v. Endell, 

981 F.2d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 1992); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must 

plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual 

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

Case 3:14-cv-08136-SPL--BSB Document 6 Filed 09/05/14 Page 4 of 9
- 5 - 

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 

JDDL-K 

 An Eighth Amendment threat-to-safety claim for requires a sufficiently culpable 

state of mind by the Defendants, known as “deliberate indifference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 

511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Deliberate indifference is a higher standard than negligence or 

lack of ordinary due care for the prisoner’s safety. Id. at 835. To state a claim of 

deliberate indifference, plaintiffs must meet a two-part test. “First, the alleged 

constitutional deprivation must be, objectively, sufficiently serious”; and the “official’s 

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

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

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

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

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

official must both be aware of 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 837 

(emphasis added). 

 A. Defendants Ryan and Doe (Deputy Warden)

 As stated above, a vicarious liability or respondeat superior theory is not a 

cognizable § 1983 claim. However, Plaintiff’s claims against both Defendant Ryan and 

Defendant Doe are based on a respondeat superior theory. Accordingly, Plaintiff has 

failed to state a claim against these defendants for which relief could be granted. 

B. Defendants John/Jane Doe (Classification Officers)

 Generally, the use of anonymous type appellations to identify defendants is not 

favored. Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the plaintiff to 

include the names of the parties in the action. As a practical matter, it is impossible in 

most instances for the United States Marshal or his designee to serve a summons and 

complaint or amended complaint upon an anonymous defendant. 

 The Ninth Circuit has held that where identity is unknown prior to the filing of a 

complaint, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the 

unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or 

Case 3:14-cv-08136-SPL--BSB Document 6 Filed 09/05/14 Page 5 of 9
- 6 - 

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 

JDDL-K 

that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds. Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 

F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 

1980)). However, the plaintiff must still plead facts sufficient to demonstrate that the 

unknown defendants have violated the plaintiff’s rights. 

 Here, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the John/Jane Doe classification 

officer defendants. Plaintiff has not alleged that these defendants were, for instance, 

aware that Plaintiff’s victim was on his “Do Not House” list (indeed, it is unclear whether 

the victim was on Plaintiff’s “Do Not House” list, or whether ADOC officials were even 

aware who Plaintiff’s victim was). Plaintiff has not indicated what information, if any, 

these defendants were aware of, when they became aware of that information, and why 

their responses (or lack of responses) to that information constitutes “deliberate 

indifference.” Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against these defendants 

for which relief could be granted. 

V. Leave to Amend 

 Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against any named Defendant for 

which relief could be granted, the Complaint will be dismissed. Within 30 days, Plaintiff 

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

of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first amended 

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

amended complaint and dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 3:14-cv-08136-SPL--BSB Document 6 Filed 09/05/14 Page 6 of 9
- 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 

JDDL-K 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

failure to state a claim. Conclusory allegations that a Defendant or group of 

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

dismissed. 

VI. Warnings

A. Release

 If released from custody, 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

 If Plaintiff’s 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. 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 3:14-cv-08136-SPL--BSB Document 6 Filed 09/05/14 Page 7 of 9
- 8 - 

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 

JDDL-K 

C. Copies

 Because Plaintiff is currently confined in an Arizona Department of Corrections 

unit subject to General Order 14-17, Plaintiff is not required to submit an additional copy 

of every filing for use by the Court, as would ordinarily be required by Local Rule of 

Civil Procedure 5.4. If Plaintiff is transferred to a unit other than one subject to General 

Order 14-17, he will be notified of the requirements regarding copies for the Court that 

are required for inmates whose cases are not subject to General Order 14-17. 

 D. Possible “Strike”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. 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, 963 

F.2d at 1260-61 (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 (Doc. 2) is granted. 

 (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 $37.86. 

. . . . 

Case 3:14-cv-08136-SPL--BSB Document 6 Filed 09/05/14 Page 8 of 9
- 9 - 

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 

JDDL-K 

(3) 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. 

 (4) 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). 

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

civil rights complaint by a prisoner. 

Dated this 5th day of September, 2014.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-08136-SPL--BSB Document 6 Filed 09/05/14 Page 9 of 9