Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02813/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02813-0/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

1

Many inmates apparently believe that they will receive an immediate payout from

a fund established in Hart v. Hill, No. CV 77-0479-PHX-EHC (MS) (D. Ariz.). No such fund

exists. The inmates in Hart asked for injunctive relief and not monetary damages. The

Court at this time exp resses no opinion whether Plaintiff’s lawsuit may result in an award

of damages. 

JDDL-K

LMH

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Dean Gregg, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2813-PHX-DGC (VAM)

ORDER

This is one of more than one thousand actions filed since Sept ember 2004 by

Maricopa County Jail inmates.1 Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at t he Lower Buckeye Jail

in Phoenix, Arizona, t hough his action concerns conditions at the Durango Jail. The Court

will dismiss the action with leave to amend.

A. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis & Filing Fee.

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for t his

action. An initial partial filing fee of $41.00 (based on an average monthly deposit of

$205.00) will be assessed by this Order. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, t he

Court will direct the appropriate agency t o collect the initial partial filing fee from Plaintiff’s

Case 2:05-cv-02813-DGC--VAM Document 3 Filed 01/31/06 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

t rust account and forward it to the Clerk of Court. Thereafter, Plaintiff will be obligat ed for

monthly payments of 20 percent of the p receding month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s

trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the app rop riat e agency to the Clerk

of Court each time the amount in Plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until t he filing fee is

paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Plaintiff should take notice that if he is released before the filing fee is paid in full,

he must pay the remaining unpaid amount of the filing fee within 120 day s of the date of

his release. If Plaintiff fails to pay the remainder of the filing fee within 120 days of the date

of his release, the action will be dismissed, unless Plaintiff shows good cause, in writing,

why he is unable to pay the remainder of the filing fee.

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 p ortion thereof if Plaintiff has raised

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” t hat 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). 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 the

complaint before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th

Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court is required to grant leave to amend “if a complaint can

possibly be saved,” but not if t he Complaint “lacks merit entirely.” Id. at 1129. A court

therefore should grant leave to amend if the pleading could be cured by the allegation of

other facts, or if it appears at all possible that the defect can be corrected. Id. at 1130. 

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

type of advice “would undermine the district judges’ role as imp art ial decisionmakers.”

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

decide whether court was required to inform litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff’s Complaint

Case 2:05-cv-02813-DGC--VAM Document 3 Filed 01/31/06 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend because the complaint

may possibly be saved by amendment.

C. Complaint.

Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the conditions at the Durango Jail concern

overcrowding, medical care and visitation. He brings his complaint pursuant to “Hart vs.

MCSO.” (Compl. at 1.) He has not, however, identified any constitutional right that was

violated by the conditions at the jail. Among the types of relief he seeks are “contempt

measures” (Comp l. at 7), apparently seeking to enforce alleged noncompliance with Hart

v. Hill. 

D. Failure to State a Claim.

1. Enforcement of Hart v. Hill

Plaintiff may not seek to enforce the Amended Judgment in Hart v. Hill, No. CIV 77-

0479-PHX-EHC (MS) (D. Ariz.) in this action. Jurisdict ion t o enforce the judgment is

retained by the court which entered it. Jeff D. v. Kemp t horne, 365 F.3d 844, 853 (9th Cir.

2004). A civil rights action is not the proper means by which t o enforce t he decree. Cagle

v. Sutherland, 334 F.3d 980, 986 (11th Cir. 2003); Klein v. Zavaras, 80 F.3d 432, 435 (10th Cir.

1996); DeGidio v. Pung, 920 F.2d 525, 534 (8th Cir.1990); Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116,

1122-23 (5th Cir. 1986). Standing alone, remedial orders cannot serve as a substantive basis

for a § 1983 claim for damages because such orders do not create “rights, privileges, or

immunities secured by the Const itution and laws.” Green, 788 F.3d at 1123-24. Remedial

decrees are the means by which unconstitutional conditions are corrected but they do not

create or enlarge constitutional rights. Id. at 1123. Instead, Plaintiff’s allegations must

separately state a violation of a constitutional right. At this juncture, Plaintiff’s allegations

do not state a claim for a constitutional violation because for each of his count s for relief,

he has not ident ified the constitutional right that he believes was violated by the

conditions at the jails. For this reason alone, his Complaint fails to state a claim.

Case 2:05-cv-02813-DGC--VAM Document 3 Filed 01/31/06 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

2. Failure to state a claim against the named defendants

In addition, Plaintiff’s allegations are not connected to any of t he named

Defendants. He sues Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, Durango Jail Commander

Captain Peterson, Maricopa County, and State of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano. 

a. Sheriff Arpaio and Captain Peterson

Plaintiff alleges that Sheriff Arpaio is the “commander in chief, facilitator of the

rules” and that Cap t ain Peterson is the “commander and facilitator of rules and

regulat ions” (Compl. at 2). These allegations are insufficient to state a claim. When a

person is sued in an official capacity, the real party in interest is the entity of which the

officer is an agent. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985) (quoting Monell v.

New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978)). In their official

capacities, “[c]ounty officials can be held liable under § 1983 if they act as “lawmakers or

. . . those whose edict s or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.” Berry v.

Baca, 379 F.3d 764, 767 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). In this case, the

entity is M aricopa County. Plaintiff must also show that an official municipal policy

caused him t o suffer a constitutional tort. Berry, 379 F.3d at 767. The entity may also be

liable when its custom played a part in the violation of federal law. Kentucky, 473 U.S. at

166. Plaintiff has not alleged that an official policy or custom created or enforced by

Defendants Arpaio or Peterson caused him to suffer constitutional injury. 

Regarding Defendant Arpaio and Peterson’s liability in their individual capacities,

there are no allegations to show that either Defendant was personally involved in the

alleged constitutional violations. Defendants may be liable only if “they play an

affirmative part in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights.” King v. At iy eh, 814

F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1987). Defendant Arpaio is not liable simply because he is a chief

administrator, nor may Defendant Peterson be liable simply because he is an administrative

assistant. There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, so a defendant’s position

as the supervisor of a person who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional right s does

not impose liability. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Taylor v. List, 880

Case 2:05-cv-02813-DGC--VAM Document 3 Filed 01/31/06 Page 4 of 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 - 5 -

F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “A supervisor is only liable for constitutional violations of

his subordinates if the sup ervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the

violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. Plaintiff has not set

forth any facts to show that either Defendant is liable in his individual capacity.

b. Maricopa County

Plaintiff also sues Maricopa County. For a municipality to be liable, t he action

alleged to be unconstitutional must implement a policy officially adopted by the

municipality. Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 867 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Scofield

v. Cit y of Hillsborough, 862 F.2d 759, 765 (9th Cir. 1988)). Plaintiff has not alleged that he

was constitutionally injured as a result of a county policy. Consequently, he fails to state

a claim against Maricopa County.

c. Governor Napolitano

Plaintiff’s allegation that Governor Napolitano is the “overseer of the Stat e of

Ariz ona” (Compl. at 2) also is not sufficient to state a claim. Under the Eleventh

Amendment t o the Constitution of the United States, a state may not be sued in federal

court without its consent. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89,

100 (1984); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff therefore cannot

bring a suit for money damages against an official-capacity defendant but may only seek

prospective declaratory or injunctive relief. Idaho v. Couer d’Alene Tribe, 521 U.S. 261, 269

(1997); Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 102-106; Doe v. Lawrence Livermore Nat’l Lab., 131 F.3d 836,

839 (9th Cir. 1997). With respect to declaratory or injunctive relief, “[i]n making an officer

of the state a party defendant in a suit to enjoin the enforcement of an act alleged to be

unconstitutional, it is plain that such officer must have some connection with the

enforcement of the act , or else it is merely making him a party as a representative of the

state, and thereby attempting t o make the state a party.” Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 157

(1908). 

Plaintiff has not alleged that Governor Napolitano has any connection with the

alleged unconstitutional acts in the county jails. Indeed, under state law, the operation of

Case 2:05-cv-02813-DGC--VAM Document 3 Filed 01/31/06 Page 5 of 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 - 6 -

the county jail is a responsibility of the county sheriff. See A.R.S. § 11-441(A)(5); A.R.S.

§ 31-101. Consequently, Plaint iff fails to state a claim against Governor Napolitano in her

official capacity.

Similarly, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts to show that the governor is liable in her

individual capacity. Liability in a personal-capacity suit can be demonstrated by showing

that the official caused the alleged constitutional injury. Kentucky, 473 U.S. at 165. There

are no allegations to show that Governor Napolitano caused Plaintiff to suffer

constitutional injury. “A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that

an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v.

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 (1999). There are

no allegations to support individual liability against Governor Napolitano.

E. Leave to Amend.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Comp laint will be dismissed for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff may amend his Complaint to cure the

deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will be direct ed to provide Plaintiff with a

Court-approved form for filing a civil rights complaint. Plaintiff is advised t hat the 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. Any amended comp laint

submit t ed by Plaintiff should be clearly designated as such on the face of the document.

Plaintiff is also reminded that in an Amended Complaint, he may only include one

claim per count. The “one claim per count” rule is set forth in the form Complaint and

accompanying instructions, and is a requirement imposed by the local rules of this Court.

See LRCiv 3.4(a) (complaint must be in accordance with the instructions provided with the

form). 

An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard

Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the original pleading

is treated as nonexist ent . Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Thus, causes of action alleged in an

Case 2:05-cv-02813-DGC--VAM Document 3 Filed 01/31/06 Page 6 of 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 - 7 -

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived. King v.

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

F. Address Changes.

In the not ice of assignment issued in this action (Doc. #2), Plaintiff was advised he

must file a not ice of change of address if his address changes. Plaintiff is again reminded

that at all times during the pendency of this action, Plaintiff shall immediately advise the

Court of any change of address and its effective date. Such notice shall be captioned

“NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.” Plaintiff shall serve a copy of the Notice of

Change of Address on all opposing parties. The notice shall contain only information

pertaining to the change of address and its effective date, and shall not include a motion

for other relief. Failure to timely 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.

G. Warning of Possible Dismissal.

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

Order, t his action will be dismissed without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-

61(district court may dismiss action for failure t o comply with any order of the Court).

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

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

dismissal of this action will count as a “strike” under the “three strikes” provision of the

Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

(2) Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for t his action.

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $41.00. All fees shall be collect ed and p aid

in accordance with this Court=s Order to the appropriate government agency filed

concurrently herewith.

Case 2:05-cv-02813-DGC--VAM Document 3 Filed 01/31/06 Page 7 of 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 - 8 -

(3) The Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff shall have 30

days from the date this Order is filed t o file an Amended Complaint in compliance with this

Order.

(4) The Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with

prejudice and without furt her notice to Plaintiff, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended

complaint within thirty (30) days of t he date this Order is filed. Upon entry of judgment,

the Clerk shall make an entry on the docket in this matter indicat ing t hat the dismissal of

this action falls within the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

(5) The Clerk of Court is directed to provide t o Plaintiff a current court-approved

form for filing a civil rights complaint by a prisoner.

DATED this 26th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02813-DGC--VAM Document 3 Filed 01/31/06 Page 8 of 8