Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00100/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00100-0/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 SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald Edward Smith, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

MCSO Towers Kitchen, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-0100-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff Ronald Edward Smith, who is confined in the Towers Jail in Phoenix,

Arizona, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 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 not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The statutory

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.

Case 2:09-cv-00100-MHM--DKD Document 4 Filed 02/13/09 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

§ 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). 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). Plaintiff’s Complaint

will be dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to amend because the Complaint may

possibly be saved by amendment.

III. Complaint

Plaintiff alleges two counts regarding the food provided to him as a pretrial detainee.

Plaintiff sues only the MCSO Towers Kitchen. He seeks compensatory relief. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts supporting that (1) the

conduct about which he complains was committed by a person acting under the color of state

law and (2) the conduct deprived him of a federal constitutional or statutory right. Wood v.

Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989). In addition, to state a valid constitutional

claim, 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).

A. Failure to Name a Proper Defendant

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must sue a “person” who, acting under color

of state law, violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. A “person” for purposes of § 1983,

includes officials or officers who directly violated or caused a violation of a plaintiff’s

constitutional rights. Further, a supervisor “is only liable for constitutional violations of his

Case 2:09-cv-00100-MHM--DKD Document 4 Filed 02/13/09 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the

violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.

1989). In addition, Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a 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 or unnamed defendant. That is, a plaintiff must

sue the “persons” responsible, not “staff” or fictitiously-named defendants. 

In addition to individual officers, a municipality is also a “person” for purposes of

§ 1983, i.e., a municipality, such as a city or county, may be sued. See Leatherman v.

Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 166 (1993);

Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). To state a claim against a

municipality under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts to support that his constitutional

rights were violated pursuant to a policy or custom of the municipality. Cortez v. County of

Los Angeles, 294 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91);

Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir. 1989). Therefore, a

plaintiff cannot state a § 1983 claim against a municipal defendant unless he alleges that the

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

and explains how such policy or custom caused his injury. Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d

1076, 1080 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal of a municipal defendant pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)).

Plaintiff sues only the MCSO Towers Kitchen. That is not a “person” subject to suit

pursuant to § 1983. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

B. Conditions of Confinement (Meals)

In Count I, Plaintiff asserts that he has been denied the right to edible food and that

he should not have to buy edible food. A pretrial detainee’s claim for unconstitutional

conditions of confinement arises from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

while a convicted inmate’s claims for unconstitutional conditions arises from the Eighth

Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S.

Case 2:09-cv-00100-MHM--DKD Document 4 Filed 02/13/09 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

520, 537 (1979); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). Nevertheless, the

same standards are applied. See Frost, 152 F.3d at 1128. To state a claim for

unconstitutional conditions, a plaintiff must allege an objectively “sufficiently serious”

deprivation that results in the denial of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.”

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir.

1994); see Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2002). That

is, a plaintiff must allege facts supporting that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a

substantial risk of harm. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Whether a condition of confinement rises

to the level of a constitutional violation may depend, in part, on the duration of an inmate’s

exposure to that condition. Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Hutto

v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686-87 (1978)). In addition to alleging facts to support that he is

confined in conditions posing a substantial risk of harm, a plaintiff must also allege facts to

support that a defendant had a “sufficiently culpable state of mind,” i.e., that the official acted

with deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety. See Farmer, 511 U.S. 837. In

defining “deliberate indifference” in the jail context, the Supreme Court has imposed a

subjective test: “the official must both be aware of the facts from which the inference could

be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”

Id. A plaintiff must also allege how he was injured by the alleged unconstitutional

conditions. See, e.g., Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996) (doctrine of standing

requires that claimant have suffered or will imminently suffer actual harm); Caswell v.

Calderon, 363 F.3d 832, 836 (9th Cir. 2004).

With respect to meals, “[t]he Eighth Amendment requires only that prisoners receive

food that is adequate to maintain health; it need not be tasty or aesthetically pleasing.”

LeMaire v. Maass, 121 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted); Frost, 152 F.3d

at 1128 (applying Eighth Amendment standard to a pretrial detainee’s Fourteenth

Amendment claims regarding conditions of confinement). “The fact that the food

occasionally contains foreign objects or sometimes is served cold, while unpleasant, does not

amount to a constitutional deprivation.” Id. (quoting Hamm v. Dekalb County, 774 F.2d

Case 2:09-cv-00100-MHM--DKD Document 4 Filed 02/13/09 Page 4 of 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 - 5 -

1567, 1575 (9th Cir. 1985)). An inmate may, however, state a claim where he alleges that

he is served meals with insufficient calories for long periods of time. Id. 

Plaintiff makes only conclusory allegations that the food is unfit for human

consumption and is inedible. He does not allege that he has received inadequate nutrition or

lost weight due to inadequate meals. Plaintiff also fails to allege facts to support that any

“person” acting under color of state law has acted with deliberate indifference in providing

meals. Absent the allegation of additional facts, Plaintiff fails to state a constitutional

violation based upon the food provided to inmates. 

C. Neglect

In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that the provision of outdated food, spoiled milk and

meat, and blackened vegetables, “make a person consider starving.” (Doc.# 1 at 4.) For the

reasons discussed above, these allegations fail to state a claim. Moreover, to the extent that

Plaintiff alleges negligence, he fails to state a constitutional violation. Negligence by a

defendant acting under color of state law is not sufficient to state a claim under § 1983.

Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986) (plaintiff must plead more than mere

negligence in a § 1983 action); see Alfrey v. United States, 276 F.3d 557, 568 (9th Cir.

2002). Accordingly, Count II fails to state a claim.

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.

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. 

Case 2:09-cv-00100-MHM--DKD Document 4 Filed 02/13/09 Page 5 of 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 - 6 -

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 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 will 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

Case 2:09-cv-00100-MHM--DKD Document 4 Filed 02/13/09 Page 6 of 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 - 7 -

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). 

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, filed with the Complaint,

is granted. (Doc.# 3.) 

(2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency,

Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is not assessed an initial partial filing fee.

(3) The Complaint 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. (Doc.# 1.)

(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 counts 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 12th day of February, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00100-MHM--DKD Document 4 Filed 02/13/09 Page 7 of 7