Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00628/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00628-0/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

TERMPSREF

WO ASH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Matthew A. Meiner,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Unknown Luna, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 20-00628-PHX-MTL (JFM)

ORDER

Plaintiff Matthew A. Meiner, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexTucson, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and 

an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will order Defendant 

Luna to answer Count One of the Complaint, and will dismiss the remaining claim and 

Defendant without prejudice.

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 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 assess an initial partial filing fee of $24.27. The remainder 

of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 

credited to Plaintiff’s trust account 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.

. . . .

Case 2:20-cv-00628-MTL-JFM Document 7 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 8
- 2 -

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

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). 

A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 

not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 

relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 

experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 

allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 

are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681.

But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 

must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 

(9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 

U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 

. . . .

Case 2:20-cv-00628-MTL-JFM Document 7 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 8
- 3 -

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

III. Complaint

In his two-count Complaint, Plaintiff names Correctional Officer Luna, and an 

unknown Correctional Officer referred to as John Doe, as Defendants. Plaintiff seeks 

monetary relief, and punitive damages.

Plaintiff’s claims arise from a common core of operative facts, as follows: In March 

or April 2019, Plaintiff alleges that he asked a nurse if he could speak with her in private. 

The nurse had Luna escort Plaintiff to a private medical room, where Plaintiff recounted 

that his cellmate had been threatening him and that he was afraid his cellmate was going 

to kill him. The nurse told Plaintiff that she did not have the authority to move Plaintiff 

out of his cell, but had Plaintiff recount his allegations to Luna. Plaintiff did so, including 

that his cellmate had said that skinheads like me kill people like you.” However, Luna 

responded that he “wasn’t going to move [Plaintiff]” and that even if he wanted to he was 

too busy.” Officer Luna then ordered Plaintiff back to his cell. On the way Plaintiff told 

Luna that his cellmate was going to kill him, but Luna responded “you’ll be fine.” 

Approximately one week later, Plaintiff’s cellmate beat and sexually assaulted Plaintiff.

Thereafter, Plaintiff told John Doe that he needed to speak with him while John Doe 

was escorting Plaintiff to the shower. John Doe responded that Plaintiff should take his 

shower, and walked away. When John Doe returned, Plaintiff told him that he needed to 

report a “PREA incident,” presumably referring to the Prison Rape Elimination Act 

(PREA). John Doe responded that Plaintiff needed to return to his cell. Plaintiff responded 

by saying that he “can’t return to [his] cell because [he] was beaten and sexually abused by 

[his] cell mate.” John doe told Plaintiff that he needed to know the details, and Plaintiff 

told him that his cell mate had kicked him in the head, and then kicked and hit him. While 

Plaintiff was on the ground, his cell mate “forced his penis into [Plaintiff’s] mouth while 

threatening to kill [Plaintiff].” John Doe responded that “that’s a wild story,” and then told 

Plaintiff “I’ll be back.”

John Doe then went to Plaintiff’s cell and told Plaintiff’s cellmate everything that 

Plaintiff had just told him. John Doe then returned to Plaintiff and told him he “didn’t have 

Case 2:20-cv-00628-MTL-JFM Document 7 Filed 04/30/20 Page 3 of 8
- 4 -

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

any evidence” supporting Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff told John Doe to “look at the wounds 

on [Plaintiff’s] face [and] head,” and John Doe stated that it “doesn’t look too bad.” John 

Doe then returned to Plaintiff’s cell and asked his cellmate and he and Plaintiff were “cool” 

and if Plaintiff could return to the cell. When John Doe returned, he told Plaintiff that the 

cellmate “was Ok with [Plaintiff] returning to the cell.” Plaintiff refused, stating that if he 

did return to the cell, his cellmate would kill him; Plaintiff also told John Doe that the 

cellmate had a weapon. John Doe then collected Plaintiff’s property from the cell, and told 

Plaintiff that another officer would escort Plaintiff to medical. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges an Eighth Amendment threat-to-safety claim against 

Luna in Count One, and a “PREA” claim in Count Two against John Doe.

IV. Failure to State a Claim

Plaintiff styles Count Two as arising pursuant to PREA. However, “there is no 

private cause of action available to vindicate violations of the PREA.” Hatcher v. 

Harrington, 2015 WL 474313, *5 (D. Haw. Feb. 5, 2015) (citing cases that have found that 

PREA does not create a private cause of action). As such, to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief 

in Count Two pursuant to PREA, he has failed to state a claim.

However, although there is no private cause of action under PREA, “prisoners have 

a right to be free from sexual abuse.” Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1197 (9th Cir. 

2000). As such, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s claim in Count Two as an Eighth 

Amendment threat-to-safety claim, see Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 107 F.3d 696, 

701 (9th Cir. 1996). Even so construed, however, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. 

Although John Doe was initially skeptical of Plaintiff’s story, and, as Plaintiff puts it, “tried 

to force Plaintiff back into the cell with his abuser,” John Doe ultimately removed Plaintiff 

from the cell without exposing Plaintiff to his cellmate or otherwise placing Plaintiff in 

danger. These actions do not support that John Doe was deliberately indifferent to the 

threat to Plaintiff’s safety. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim in Count Two 

against John Doe, and Count Two and John Doe will thus be dismissed.

. . . .

Case 2:20-cv-00628-MTL-JFM Document 7 Filed 04/30/20 Page 4 of 8
- 5 -

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

V. Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has sufficiently stated an Eighth Amendment threatto-safety claim against Luna, and Luna will be required to answer the Complaint.

VI. Warnings

A. Release

If Plaintiff is released while this case remains pending, and the filing fee has not 

been paid in full, Plaintiff must, within 30 days of his release, either (1) notify the Court 

that he intends to pay the unpaid balance of his filing fee within 120 days of his release or 

(2) file a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 (Doc. 2) is granted.

Case 2:20-cv-00628-MTL-JFM Document 7 Filed 04/30/20 Page 5 of 8
- 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) 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 $24.27.

(3) Count Two is dismissed without prejudice.

(4) Defendant John Doe is dismissed without prejudice.

(5) Defendant Luna must answer Count One. 

(6) 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 Luna. 

(7) Plaintiff must complete1and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court 

within 21 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.

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

complete service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant within 90 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(ii).

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

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

(10) The United States Marshal must notify Defendant 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.

(11) 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, within 

30 days of the date of the notice and request for waiver of service pursuant to Federal 

1

If a Defendant is an officer or employee of the Arizona Department of Corrections, 

Plaintiff must list the address of the specific institution where the officer or employee 

works. Service cannot be effected on an officer or employee at the Central Office of the 

Arizona Department of Corrections unless the officer or employee works there.

Case 2:20-cv-00628-MTL-JFM Document 7 Filed 04/30/20 Page 6 of 8
- 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

TERMPSREF

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1)(F) to avoid being charged the cost of personal service.

(12) The Marshal must immediately file signed waivers of service of the 

summons. If a waiver of service of summons is returned as undeliverable or 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, 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, 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) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the 

Court.

(13) 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.

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

Case 2:20-cv-00628-MTL-JFM Document 7 Filed 04/30/20 Page 7 of 8
- 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

(14) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf pursuant to 

Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial proceedings as 

authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Dated this 30th day of April, 2020.

Case 2:20-cv-00628-MTL-JFM Document 7 Filed 04/30/20 Page 8 of 8