Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01215/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01215-0/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

TERMPSREF 28

BL

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James N. Ziengenfus, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1215-PHX-DGC (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff James N. Ziengenfus, Jr., currently confined in the East Unit of the Arizona

State Prison Complex in Florence, Arizona, has filed a motion for leave to file his first

amended complaint on something other than the court approved form (Doc. #8), attaching

his a pro se Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court will grant the

motion, order the attached Complaint docketed as Plaintiff’s first Amended Complaint, and

order Defendants to answer the Complaint. Plaintiff’s motion for procedural order (Doc. # 9)

will be denied.

A. Procedural History and Motion for Leave

Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint in April 2005. (Doc. #1). This Court dismissed

the Complaint, determining that based on the allegations, Plaintiff’s Complaint might be

barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). (Doc. #6). Plaintiff was given

an opportunity to amend his Complaint. (Doc. #6). Plaintiff then filed a motion for leave

to file his first amended complaint on other than court approved form. (Doc. #8). Plaintiff

alleges that he filled out the form, but discovered that he had made numerous errors. In an

Case 2:05-cv-01215-DKD Document 10 Filed 05/01/06 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

attempt to meet the deadline, Plaintiff then drafted his Complaint without the use of the court

approved form. Attached to Plaintiff’s motion is his First Amended Complaint. (Doc. #8).

Plaintiff’s motion will be granted, and the attached Amended Complaint will be docketed as

such.

B. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

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

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

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the 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). The Court also must dismiss a complaint or portion

thereof if Plaintiff fails to exhaust any administrative remedy available to him. 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a). 

C. Amended Complaint

In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants (1) Joseph M. Arpaio,

Sheriff of Maricopa County, (2) Barbara Broderick, Chief Probation Officer, (3) Paula R.

Soelle, deputy probation officer, (4) John Doe, sheriff’s deputy, and (6) Richard Roe,

sheriff’s deputy. Plaintiff alleges he was convicted and sentence for DUI in Arizona. When

he was released on probation, he was allowed to transfer to Pennsylvania. While in

Pennsylvania, he was arrested on a misdemeanor offense. At that time, Defendants Soelle

and Broderick filed a petition to revoke his probation, but decided not to proceed with

extradition proceedings. Subsequently, the petition for revocation was dismissed. However,

Defendants Doe and Roe went to Pennsylvania to extradite Plaintiff based on an arrest

warrant. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the Defendants actions, and the failure of

Defendants Arpaio and Broderick to properly train personnel, his constitutional rights were

violated due to a false arrest and imprisonment. Plaintiff also alleges that he was subject to

intentional infliction of emotional harm. Plaintiff maintains that the petition for revocation

was dismissed and that his current incarceration did not arise from the events underlying his

Case 2:05-cv-01215-DKD Document 10 Filed 05/01/06 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

claims. Thus, Plaintiff maintains his claim is not barred by Heck.

At this early stage, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, on its face, does not appear to be

barred by Heck. However, pending additional information, this Court reserves any

determination as to the applicability of Heck to the instant case.

D. Claims to be Served

At this early stage, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that his constitutional rights were

violated. Defendants Arpaio, Broderick, and Soelle will be ordered to answer the Complaint

Plaintiff also names as a defendant an unknown sheriff’s deputies. 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 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)).

Plaintiff may use the discovery processes to obtain the names of the persons whom he

believes violated his constitutional rights. If Plaintiff discovers the true identity of these

fictitious parties through the discovery process, or otherwise, he may seek leave of the Court

to amend his complaint to name the individuals in place of John/Jane Doe. 

E. Motion for Procedural Order

Plaintiff also filed a motion for procedural order (Doc. # 9), requesting an order

informing the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) of his need for a typewriter.

First, Plaintiff has not set forth sufficient justification to support his need for a typewriter.

Further, the ADOC is not a party to the instant action and has not been provided notice. See

Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a), (b). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an order informing the ADOC

Case 2:05-cv-01215-DKD Document 10 Filed 05/01/06 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

TERMPSREF - 4 -

of his need for a typewriter will be denied.

F. Rule 41 Cautionary Notice

Plaintiff should take notice that if he fails to timely comply with every provision of

this Order, or any order entered in this matter, this action will be dismissed pursuant to Rule

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-

61 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any order of

the Court).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file his complaint on a non-court approved form

(Doc. #8) is granted.

(2) The Clerk of Court is directed to docket Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, which

is attached as an exhibit to document number 8, as an Amended Complaint.

(3) Plaintiff’s motion for procedural order (Doc. #9) is denied.

(4) The Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff a service packet including the Amended

Complaint, this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for Defendants

Arpaio, Broderick, and Soelle.

(5) Plaintiff shall 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.

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

service of the Summons and Complaint on each 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 pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i).

(7) The United States Marshal shall retain the Summons, a copy of the Amended

Complaint, and a copy of this Order for future use.

(8) The United States Marshal shall notify Defendants of the commencement of this

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

Case 2:05-cv-01215-DKD Document 10 Filed 05/01/06 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

TERMPSREF - 5 -

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

Marshal shall file waivers of service of the summons or requests for waivers that were

returned as undeliverable as soon as they are received. If a waiver of service of summons

is not returned by a Defendant within thirty days from the date the request for waiver was

sent by the Marshal, the Marshal shall:

(a) Personally serve copies of the Summons, Amended Complaint, and this

Order upon the Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure;

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

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

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

Defendant. The costs of service shall be enumerated on the return of service form

(USM-285) and shall 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) and (5) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

(9) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and Amended

Complaint shall return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, not the

Plaintiff.

(10) Defendants shall answer the Amended 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.

(11) Any answer or responsive pleading shall state the specific Defendant(s) by name

on whose behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, responsive pleading, or other

motion or paper that does not identify the specific Defendant(s) by name on whose behalf

it is filed.

(12) Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants, or if appearance has been entered by

Case 2:05-cv-01215-DKD Document 10 Filed 05/01/06 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

TERMPSREF - 6 -

counsel, upon counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted for

consideration by the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original document and copy, to

be filed with the Clerk of the Court, a certificate stating the date a true and correct copy of

the pleading or document was mailed to Defendants or counsel. Any paper received by a

District Court Judge or Magistrate Judge which has not been filed with the Clerk of Court

may be disregarded by the Court.

(13) At all times during the pendency of this action, Plaintiff shall immediately advise

the Court and the United States Marshal of any change of address and its effective date.

Such notice shall be captioned “NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.” The notice shall

contain only information pertaining to the change of address and its effective date. Plaintiff

shall serve a copy of the notice on all opposing parties. The notice shall not include any

motions for any other relief. Failure to file a Notice of Change of Address may result in the

dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. 

(14) A clear, legible copy of every pleading or other document filed shall accompany

each original pleading or other document filed with the Clerk for use by the District Judge

or Magistrate Judge to whom the case is assigned. Failure to comply with this requirement

may result in the pleading or document being stricken without further notice to Plaintiff.

(15) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan pursuant to Rules

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

DATED this 28th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01215-DKD Document 10 Filed 05/01/06 Page 6 of 6