Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00603/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00603-3/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

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rick Alton Foley, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Frederickson, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-603-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

I. Procedural History

On March 19, 2007, Plaintiff Rick Alton Foley, who is confined in the Arizona State

Prison Complex-Florence in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. #1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an April

4, 2007 Order (Doc. #3), the Court denied the Application to Proceed because it was

incomplete and gave Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the filing fee or file a complete

Application to Proceed. In a May 9, 2007 Order (Doc. #5), the Court extended the deadline

30 days from the filing date of the May 9 Order.

On May 21, 2007, Plaintiff filed a second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Doc. #6). In a June 20, 2007 Order (Doc. #7), the Court granted the Application to Proceed

and dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days

to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order.

Case 2:07-cv-00603-SMM Document 10 Filed 08/22/07 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 -

On July 17, 2007, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. #9). The Court

will order Defendants to answer the First Amended Complaint.

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. First Amended Complaint

In his three-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues three “officials” at the

Meadows Unit of the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman: Defendants Frederickson,

Nunez, and Saucedo. Plaintiff also sues Defendants Deputy Warden Kimble and Arizona

Department of Corrections Director Dora Schriro.

In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Frederickson, Nunez, Saucedo, and

Kimble violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying him access to the courts. He

contends that these Defendants denied him access to his legal boxes for three months and that

this delay caused his state court civil cases challenging his conditions of confinement to be

dismissed because of untimely filings. Plaintiff asserts that he submitted five inmate

grievances in which he requested access to his legal boxes before the filing deadlines, but

that the Defendants refused to provide him with access to the legal boxes. He also asserts

that he notified the Defendants’ supervisor, but the supervisor refused to intervene.

In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Nunez and Saucedo violated the

Fourteenth Amendment by retaliating against him for filing complaints against Defendant

Frederickson. He alleges that Defendants Nunez and Saucedo had the authority to order

Defendant Frederickson to allow Plaintiff access to his legal boxes but refused to “grant

Plaintiff[’s] relief or take corrective action in retaliation for Plaintiff[’]s numerous

complaints.” He also contends that he was subjected to several “reprisal searches” because

Case 2:07-cv-00603-SMM Document 10 Filed 08/22/07 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 -

he did not adhere to Defendants Nunez and Saucedo’s recommendation that he drop the

complaints against Defendant Frederickson or “li[f]e can get hard for him.” Plaintiff

contends the retaliation resulted in the dismissal of his state court civil cases.

In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Kimble and Schriro violated the

Fourteenth Amendment by denying him access to the courts. He contends that Defendant

Kimble was aware of Defendants Frederickson, Nunez, and Saucedo’s conduct but failed to

take corrective action and advised Plaintiff that he would not interfere with Defendant

Frederickson’s decision not to provide Plaintiff with his legal boxes for 90 days. Plaintiff

also contends that Defendant Schriro was aware of the situation but “declined to order

Frederickson to allow Plaintiff access to his legal boxes for 90 days.” Plaintiff contends this

resulted in the dismissal of his state court civil cases.

In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, his court costs and

attorney’s fees, and all of the possible relief that he had sought in his dismissed state court

civil actions.

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated claims against Defendants in the First

Amended Complaint. The Court will required Defendants to answer the First Amended

Complaint.

IV. 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.

Case 2:07-cv-00603-SMM Document 10 Filed 08/22/07 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 -

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

Amended Complaint (Doc. #9), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms

for Defendants Frederickson, Nunez, Saucedo, Kimble, and Schriro.

(2) 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.

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

complete service of the Summons and First Amended 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).

(4) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the First

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

(5) 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

Case 2:07-cv-00603-SMM Document 10 Filed 08/22/07 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 -

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, First Amended 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

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, First Amended 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.

(6) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and First

Amended Complaint must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal,

not the Plaintiff.

(7) Defendants must answer the First 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.

(8) 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.

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

Case 2:07-cv-00603-SMM Document 10 Filed 08/22/07 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 -

(9) 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 21st day of August, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00603-SMM Document 10 Filed 08/22/07 Page 6 of 6