Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02316/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02316-4/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

SVK

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bobby Ray Sharp, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-2316-PHX-DGC (JRI)

ORDER

Plaintiff Bobby Ray Sharp, who was confined in the Lower Buckeye Jail in Phoenix,

Arizona, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate

indifference to his medical needs. Defendant Sheriff Joseph Arpaio moves to dismiss for

failure to state a claim, and the motion is fully briefed. (Doc. #26, 34, 35, 36.) The Court

will grant Arpaio’s motion and dismiss him without prejudice. 

I. Background and Summary of Motion

Plaintiff filed his original complaint on December 19, 2008, and the Court dismissed

it with leave to amend. (Doc.# 1, 11.) On February 5, 2009, Plaintiff filed a First Amended

Complaint. (Doc. #12.) The Court issued a Screening Order directing Maricopa County and

Sheriff Arpaio to answer the First Amended Complaint and dismissing the other Defendants.

(Doc. #13.) On June 19, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, which the Court

struck on July 1, 2009. (Doc. ##15, 16.) 

In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were deliberately

indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical condition that resulted from a ruptured cyst in his

Case 2:08-cv-02316-DGC Document 37 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

throat. (Doc. #12.) He seeks damages. Arpaio moves to dismiss the First Amended

Complaint because (1) the responsibility for providing medical care lies with the County, and

(2) Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing Arpaio’s involvement in the alleged violation.

(Doc. #26.)

II. Motion to Dismiss

A. Legal Standard

To state a claim, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “ a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” in order to “give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.

41, 47 (1957)). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not

need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his

‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation

of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id., citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265,

286 (1986) (on a motion to dismiss, courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion

couched as a factual allegation”). In other words, while Rule 8 does not demand detailed

factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmedme accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.

In addition, to state a valid claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he 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. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72,

377 (1976). To state a claim against a supervisory official, the civil rights complainant must

allege that the supervisory official personally participated in the constitutional deprivation

or that the supervisory official was aware of widespread abuses and, with deliberate

indifference to the inmate’s constitutional rights, failed to take action to prevent further

misconduct. See Ortez v. Washington County, Or., 88 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 1996); Taylor

v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Monell v. New York City Department

Case 2:08-cv-02316-DGC Document 37 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). There is no respondeatsuperior 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, 436 U.S. at 691-

92; Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045.

B. Parties’ Contentions

1. Arpaio

Arpaio alleges that although the responsibility for operating the jails and caring for

prisoners is placed by law on the sheriff – Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 11-441(a)(5), 31-101 – he is

not responsible for the health care of inmates in the Maricopa County Jails. (Doc. #26 at 2.)

He asserts that the responsibility for health care lies with the county. (Id., citing Ariz. Rev.

Stat. §§ 11-251(8), 11-291(A).) He alleges that medical care is provided through

Correctional Health Services (CHS), which is an administrative creation of Maricopa County,

not the Sheriff. (Id. at 2.) Arpaio also asserts that Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no

allegations that Arpaio personally directed, participated in, or had knowledge of any alleged

misconduct resulting in the deprivation of a constitutional right either individually or in his

supervisory capacity relating to detention matters. 

2. Plaintiff

Plaintiff argues that Arpaio misinterprets the language of § 11-291(A) that states that

“the board of supervisors may provide for the hospitalization and medical care of the sick in

the county. . . . ” (Doc. #34 at 3 (emphasis in Plaintiff’s response).) Plaintiff asserts that the

language does not mean that Arpaio is in no way responsible for an inmate receiving medical

care. (Doc. #34 at 3.) Plaintiff further argues that Arpaio’s powers and duties include the

duty to “[t]ake charge of and keep the county jail, including a county jail under the

jurisdiction of a county jail district, and the prisoners in the county jail.” (Id., citing Ariz.

Rev. Stat. § 11-441(A)(5).) 

Plaintiff also asserts that under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-291(B), “[t]he board may employ

physicians and other persons necessary to accomplish the purpose of this section.” (Id.

(emphasis in Plaintiff’s response).) Plaintiff argues that even if CHS is responsible for

Case 2:08-cv-02316-DGC Document 37 Filed 02/04/10 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

medical treatment, CHS and Arpaio do not operate independently because if a prisoner is in

need of medical attention, this information is relayed by the inmate to Correctional Officers

working under the policies and supervision of Arpaio, who then relay the information to

CHS. If a prisoner cries out for or is in visible need of help, it is Correctional Officers, not

CHS staff, who are required to assist the prisoner in obtaining the help they need. Plaintiff

asserts that he was denied assistance and ignored by Correctional Officers despite pleas to

staff, letters to the warden, and clear visible signs that Plaintiff was suffering from a serious

medical ailment that needed immediate attention. 

Plaintiff further asserts that he stated a valid claim in alleging that Arpaio directed,

through policy and procedure, Correctional Officers under his supervision to exhibit

deliberate indifference towards Plaintiff’s emergency medical needs and care of which he is

afforded under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Doc. #34 at 4.) 

 “All of this was set forth in Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint.” (Id., ref. Doc. #15 ¶ 20-

24.) Plaintiff also argues that qualified immunity should not be considered at this time.

(Id. at 5.)

Plaintiff filed Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiff’s Response. (Doc. #35.)

He cites to this Court’s judgment and order for injunctive relief in Graves v. Arpaio, No. CV77-0479-PHX-NVW, which included an order that “All pretrial detainees confined in the

jails shall have ready access to care to meet their serious medical and mental health needs.”

(Doc. #35 at 2.)

3. Reply

In his reply, Arpaio asserts that the interpretation of § 11-291 is dictated by the

statute’s plain language and common sense and that the language that the board of

supervisors may employ “physicians and other persons necessary” for providing medical care

means that the board may employ other medical personnel. He argues that Plaintiff offers

no authority showing that the Board of Supervisors employed Arpaio for the purpose of

providing medical care. (Doc. #36 at 3-4.) Arpaio notes that he did not raise qualified

immunity in his motion. (Id. at 4.) He asserts that Plaintiff’s supplemental authority is not

Case 2:08-cv-02316-DGC Document 37 Filed 02/04/10 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

timely because it is not new—the Judgment in Graves was filed on October 22, 2008. (Id.

at 5.) 

C. Analysis

The Court will grant Arpaio’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The

Amended Complaint on which Plaintiff relies, which in fact appears to be a Second Amended

Complaint, not a Third Amended Complaint, was stricken. (Doc. #16.) The First Amended

Complaint alleged that the nursing staff dismissed Plaintiff’s concerns, that Plaintiff was

unable to see the nursing staff, and that the nurse would not wait for Plaintiff. (Doc. #12 ¶¶

9, 10.) It also alleges that “Arpaio had an official policy or practice of unconstitutional

conduct in the manner of providing medical care to people under [his] care in the Maricopa

County Jails” and that there were training deficiencies. (Id. ¶¶ 21, 24.) 

The Court finds that these allegations are insufficient to state a claim against Arpaio

in either his individual or official capacity. There is no respondeat superior liability in a

§ 1983 action, Monell, 436 U.S. at 691-92, and Plaintiff does not allege any personal

involvement by Arpaio regarding the alleged failure to provide Plaintiff needed care.

Moreover, the allegations are too vague and conclusory to state claims for policies or

practices implemented by Arpaio – it is unclear what the policy or practice is or how it

resulted in the alleged deprivation. See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. The specific allegations

of misconduct by staff go to the acts or omissions of nursing and medical staff, not Detention

Officers. While unheeded pleas to Detention Officers regarding serious medical needs could

be relevant to Arpaio’s liability, the First Amended Complaint contains no such allegations.

Plaintiff has not alleged an affirmative link between Arpaio’s conduct and the Plaintiff’s

injury and so fails to state a claim against him. See Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371-72.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Arpaio’s Motion to

dismiss (Doc. #26).

Case 2:08-cv-02316-DGC Document 37 Filed 02/04/10 Page 5 of 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

- 6 -

(2) Arpaio’s Motion to dismiss (Doc. #26) is granted, and he is dismissed without

prejudice from the action.

DATED this 4th day of February, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02316-DGC Document 37 Filed 02/04/10 Page 6 of 6