Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02567/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02567-0/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 KM 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Ramon Manuel Rivera, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 12-2567-PHX-RCB (JFM) 

 O R D E R 

Plaintiff Ramon Manuel Rivera, who is confined in the Maricopa County Lower 

Buckeye Jail, 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 $41.96. 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 2:12-cv-02567-RCB--JFM Document 5 Filed 02/05/13 Page 1 of 7
- 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 2:12-cv-02567-RCB--JFM Document 5 Filed 02/05/13 Page 2 of 7
- 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). The 

Court should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type of 

advice “would undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. 

Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to 

decide whether the court was required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). The Court 

will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because the Complaint 

may possibly be saved by amendment, will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 

III. Complaint 

 Plaintiff names the Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail and the Maricopa 

County Sheriff’s Office as Defendants in the Compliant. 

 Plaintiff raises three claims for relief in which he alleges his right to be free from 

cruel and unusual punishment was violated when he was required to use an upstairs 

visitation room despite the fact that he is disabled and uses a wheelchair. In Count One, 

Plaintiff claims he was forced to use the upstairs visitation room or miss his visit and was 

not provided with assistance from jail staff. In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that after the 

visit he was asked to return to his cell but was not given assistance. Plaintiff claims he 

attempted to climb down the stairs himself, but fell. In Count Three, Plaintiff claims that 

the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office failed to comply with the guidelines set forth in the 

American’s with Disabilities Act. 

 Plaintiff seeks money damages. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim

The Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail is not a proper Defendant to this action. 

Claims under § 1983 are directed at “bodies politic and corporate.” Monell v. Dept. of 

Soc. Serv. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 688-89 (1978). Under the Civil Rights Act of 

1871, Congress intended municipalities and other local government units to be included 

among those persons to whom § 1983 applies. Id. at 689-690. Because a jail is neither a 

Case 2:12-cv-02567-RCB--JFM Document 5 Filed 02/05/13 Page 3 of 7
- 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 

corporation nor a body politic, it is not a person for purposes of § 1983, and accordingly, 

the Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail will be dismissed. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 As no proper Defendant remains, the Court will dismiss the Complaint. 

V. Leave to Amend 

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

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 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. 

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

 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 have violated a constitutional right are not acceptable and will be 

dismissed. 

Case 2:12-cv-02567-RCB--JFM Document 5 Filed 02/05/13 Page 4 of 7
- 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 

 Plaintiff should note that pretrial detainee’s claim for unconstitutional conditions 

of confinement arises from the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause rather than 

from the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Bell v. 

Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 and n.16 (1979). Nevertheless, the same standards are 

applied, requiring proof that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference. See Frost 

v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). 

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

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

state a claim of deliberate indifference, plaintiffs must meet a two-part test. 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.” Id. at 834. 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. 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). Accordingly, Plaintiff identify and 

name as defendants the individuals who violated his constitutional rights and must 

describe whether each individual acted with deliberate indifference to a threat to his 

safety. 

 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 2:12-cv-02567-RCB--JFM Document 5 Filed 02/05/13 Page 5 of 7
- 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 

in the original complaint is waived if it is not raised in a first amended complaint. King v. 

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

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 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 “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). 

..... 

Case 2:12-cv-02567-RCB--JFM Document 5 Filed 02/05/13 Page 6 of 7
- 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 

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 $41.96. 

(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 February, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02567-RCB--JFM Document 5 Filed 02/05/13 Page 7 of 7