Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02559/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02559-1/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. filed Jan. 10,

1995). No such fund exists. The inmates in Hart asked for injunctive relief and not monetary

damages. The Court at this time expresses no opinion on whether Plaintiff’s lawsuit may

result in an award of damages. 

2

 “Doc.#” refers to the docket number of filings in this action.

TERMPSREF

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jason Dean Bartley, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona State, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2559-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Jason Dean Bartley, who is confined in the Towers Jail in Phoenix, Arizona,

filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 followed by an Application

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

1

 (Doc.# 1, 5.)2 The Court will order Defendant Arpaio to

answer Counts I, II (in part) and III of the Complaint and will dismiss Count II (in part) and

the remaining Defendants without prejudice. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Doc.# 5.) 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 $5.66. The

Case 2:06-cv-02559-SMM-LOA Document 6 Filed 01/29/07 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

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. 

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. Complaint

Plaintiff alleges three claims for relief regarding his conditions of confinement.

Plaintiff sues the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M.

Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. Plaintiff seeks compensatory, punitive

and injunctive relief. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege (1) that the conduct about which

he complains was committed by a person acting under the color of state law and (2) that the

conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right. Wood v.

Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989). Further, a “‘plaintiff generally must assert his

own legal rights and interests, and cannot assert the legal rights or interests of third parties.’”

Mothershed v. Justices of the Supreme Court, 410 F.3d 602, 610 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he

suffered a specific injury as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must

allege an affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v.

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

Case 2:06-cv-02559-SMM-LOA Document 6 Filed 01/29/07 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

A. Hart v. Hill

Plaintiff seeks relief in part based on rulings in Hart v. Hill, No. CIV 77-0479-PHXEHC (D. Ariz 1995). Jurisdiction to enforce the judgment in Hart is retained by the court

that entered it, Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 853 (9th Cir. 2004), and Plaintiff may

not enforce the decree entered in Hart in a separate civil rights action, 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). Moreover, standing alone, remedial orders, such as that entered in

Hart, 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 Constitution and laws.”

Green, 788 F.3d at 1123-24. Rather, remedial decrees are the means by which

unconstitutional conditions are corrected. Id. at 1123. For these reasons, Plaintiff may not

properly seek § 1983 relief to enforce Hart in this action; instead, he must allege violations

of particular constitutional rights. 

B. State of Arizona

On the face of his Complaint, Plaintiff names the State of Arizona as a Defendant.

Under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, neither a state nor

a state agency may be sued for damages in federal court without its consent. Pennhurst State

Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045

(9th Cir. 1989). “Furthermore, a state is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 1983.” Hale

v. State of Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (citation omitted).

Accordingly, the State of Arizona will be dismissed.

C. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

On the face of his Complaint, Plaintiff also names the Maricopa County Sheriff’s

Office (MCSO) as a defendant; however, MCSO is not a proper Defendant. In Arizona, the

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

see A.R.S. §§ 11-441(A)(5), 31-101, and on the county, see A.R.S. §§ 11-251(8), 11-291(A).

A sheriff’s office is simply an administrative creation of the county sheriff to allow him to

Case 2:06-cv-02559-SMM-LOA Document 6 Filed 01/29/07 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

TERMPSREF - 4 -

carry out his statutory duties, and not a “person” amenable to suit pursuant to § 1983.

Accordingly, MCSO will be dismissed from this action as a Defendant.

D. Failure to Connect Allegations to Defendant Maricopa County

 Although Maricopa County may properly be sued for constitutional violations,

Plaintiff fails to state a claim against it. A municipality may not be held liable under § 1983

unless its policy or custom caused the constitutional injury. See Leatherman v. Tarrant

County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 166 (1993); Monell v.

Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Thus, a municipality may not be sued solely

because an injury was inflicted by one of its employees or agents. Long v. County of Los

Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). Rather, the municipality is liable only when

the execution of its policy or custom inflicts the constitutional injury. Id.; Miranda v. City

of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 868 (9th Cir. 2005). Therefore, a § 1983 claim against a

municipal defendant “cannot succeed as a matter of law” unless a plaintiff: (1) contends that

the municipal defendant maintains a policy or custom pertinent to the plaintiff’s alleged

injury; and (2) explains how such policy or custom caused the plaintiff’s injury. Sadoski v.

Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1080 (9th Cir.) (affirming dismissal of a municipal defendant

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 2864 (2006). Plaintiff has not

alleged that Maricopa County has enacted or enforced a policy, custom, or practice that

resulted in the denial of his civil rights. Thus, he fails to state a claim against Maricopa

County and it will be dismissed.

E. Recreation

Plaintiff alleges in part in Count II that his constitutional rights have been violated

because he has received outdoor recreation only twice a week rather than six days a week for

an hour per day. (Doc.# 1 at 5.) The long-term denial of outdoor recreation and exercise can

rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1089-90 (9th

Cir. 1996). In this case, Plaintiff admits that he receives outdoor recreation twice a week.

(Doc.# 1 at 5.) Plaintiff fails to allege facts to support that he has experienced a long-term

denial of outdoor recreation. See Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1039, 1041 (9th Cir. 2005)

Case 2:06-cv-02559-SMM-LOA Document 6 Filed 01/29/07 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

TERMPSREF - 5 -

(some form of regular outdoor exercise satisfies the Constitution). In addition, Plaintiff has

not alleged how he was harmed by the lack of more opportunities for outdoor recreation. See

Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 2004) (to violate Due Process Clause, the

pretrial detainee must have suffered some harm or disability from the condition), cert. denied,

125 S.Ct. 2961 (2005). Accordingly, that portion of Count II will be dismissed. 

V. Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required

Plaintiff alleges that the meals served to inmates provided insufficient nutrition,

frequently contained spoiled items, consistently included undercooked and bloody chicken,

and were prepared and/or served by inmates infected with Hepatitis C or other diseases, who

did not wear gloves. (Doc.# 1 at 4.) He alleges that as a result, he was exposed to food

poisoning, suffered nausea, indigestion and headaches from eating the meals and was

constantly hungry from inadequate food. (Id.) In Counts II (in part) and III, Plaintiff alleges

that severe overcrowding, with up to three times the intended number of inmates confined

to a cell and in a pod, posed a high risk from assault and unsanitary conditions. (Id. at 5, 6.)

He further alleges that there were insufficient showers, sinks and toilets, that insufficient

sanitary drinking water was available to inmates, and that he suffered sleeplessness because

lights were constantly on and the temperatures were so cold. (Id.) He alleges that showers

are moldy, the pods filthy and that inadequate cleaning supplies are provided. (Id.) He also

alleges that spiders bite inmates and mice eat commissary items purchased by inmates. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that he suffered illness and skin infections due to the lack of sanitation. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that Arpaio’s policies and procedures resulted in the alleged constitutional

violations. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff sufficiently states claims regarding these conditions of

confinement against Arpaio, who will be required to answer. 

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

Case 2:06-cv-02559-SMM-LOA Document 6 Filed 01/29/07 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

TERMPSREF - 6 -

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 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) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted. (Doc.# 5.) 

(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 $5.66.

(3) Count II (in part) and Defendants State of Arizona, Maricopa County, and

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office are dismissed without prejudice.

(4) Defendant Arpaio must answer Counts I, II (in part) and III. 

(5) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including the Complaint

(doc.# 1), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for Defendant Arpaio.

(6) Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court within

Case 2:06-cv-02559-SMM-LOA Document 6 Filed 01/29/07 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

TERMPSREF - 7 -

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.

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

service of the Summons and 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).

(8) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the Complaint,

and a copy of this Order for future use.

(9) 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 Defendant must include a copy of this Order. The

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 the

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, 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 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 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, 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.

(10) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and Complaint

must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, not the Plaintiff.

Case 2:06-cv-02559-SMM-LOA Document 6 Filed 01/29/07 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

TERMPSREF - 8 -

(11) Defendant must answer the 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.

(12) 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.

(13) 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 29th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02559-SMM-LOA Document 6 Filed 01/29/07 Page 8 of 8