Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00736/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00736-0/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 - 1 -

WO RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Samuel Colin Compton, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-736-PHX-SMM (BPV)

ORDER

Samuel Colin Compton (Plaintiff), presently confined in the Maricopa County Madison

Street Jail in Phoenix, Arizona (Madison Jail), filed with the Clerk of the Court a pro se

"Civil Rights Complaint By A Prisoner" (Document #1) (Complaint) pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Plaintiff did not pay the one hundred and fifty dollar ($150.00) filing fee, but filed

a certified "Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis By A Prisoner Civil (Non-Habeas)"

(Application To Proceed) and an "Inmate Account Statement" (Account Statement) with his

Complaint.

 By Order filed October 12, 2004 (Document #4), Plaintiff's Application to Proceed was

granted and Plaintiff was obligated to pay the one hundred and fifty dollar ($150.00)

statutory filing fee for this action. Based on the average monthly deposits in Plaintiff’s

account for six (6) months immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint, an initial

partial filing fee of fifteen dollars and sixteen cents ($15.16) was assessed.

Case 2:04-cv-00736-SMM-BPV Document 7 Filed 11/09/05 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 -

The Order filed October 12, 2004 also dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice,

with leave to amend. Plaintiff was given thirty (30) days from the filing date of the Order

to file an amended complaint in order to state specific allegations of deprivation of

constitutional rights against proper defendant(s), to name as defendant(s) the individual(s)

who participated in the activities alleged in his amended complaint, to state what injury he

has suffered as a result of the activities of the defendant(s), and to show how, prior to filing

this action, he exhausted his administrative remedies as to each of his claims for relief.

By separate Order filed October 12, 2004 (Document #3), the Maricopa County Sheriff

or his designee was required to send to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee, and

thereafter, payments from Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account

exceeds ten dollars ($10.00), until the statutory filing fee of one hundred and fifty dollars

($150.00) was paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

By Order filed November 4, 2004, this action was reassigned by random lot to Chief Judge

Stephen M. McNamee.

STATUTORY SCREENING OF PRISONER COMPLAINTS

The Court is required to screen complaints or amended 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 portion thereof if the 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). The Court also must dismiss a complaint or

portion thereof if Plaintiff fails to exhaust any administrative remedy available to him. 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

AMENDED COMPLAINT

On November 1, 2004, Plaintiff filed his "First Amended Complaint" (Document #5)

(Amended Complaint). Plaintiff should take notice that all causes of action alleged in an

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived. Hal Roach

Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990) (“an amended pleading

Case 2:04-cv-00736-SMM-BPV Document 7 Filed 11/09/05 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 1

See Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).

TERMPSREF - 3 -

supersedes the original”); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the

Court will consider only those claims specifically asserted in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff alleges one (1) ground for relief in his Amended Complaint. (Amended

Complaint at 4).

Named as Defendants in the Amended Complaint are: (1) Joseph Arpaio, Maricopa

County Sheriff; (2) Tracy Haggard, Jail Commander, Captain of Security, Madison Jail; and

(3) Bill Williams, Chief of Custody, Madison Jail. (Amended Complaint at 1-2).

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, and lawyer fees. (Amended

Complaint at 7).

ANSWER WILL BE REQUIRED

In Count I of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his Fourteenth Amendment

rights were violated when he was punished by being placed on a "loaf diet" for disciplinary

infractions without a due process hearing or access to the grievance procedure. (Amended

Complaint at 4). Plaintiff further alleges that he was punished for infractions which did not

involve food or eating utensils, and that when he filed the Amended Complaint he was on

a sixty (60) day loaf restriction. Id. 

“[A] detainee may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance with due

process of law.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). “‘There is, of course, a de

minimis level of imposition with which the Constitution is not concerned.’” Id. at 539 n. 21,

(quoting Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 674 (1977)). In the case of a pretrial detainee

who has been subjected to punishment, the district court does not apply a Sandin1

 analysis

to determine whether a liberty interest exists. Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 524 (9th Cir.

1996). If the restraint imposed on the detainee was not imposed as punishment for the crime

that led to the pretrial detention, but for other reasons such as the breaking of a prison rule,

the detainee is entitled to prior due process. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff states a cognizable

claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Court will require Defendants Arpaio, Haggard,

Case 2:04-cv-00736-SMM-BPV Document 7 Filed 11/09/05 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 -

and Williams to file an answer to the Amended Complaint.

RULE 41(b) WARNING

Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, or

any order of the Court entered in this matter, the action will be dismissed pursuant to Rule

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th

Cir. 1992) (stating a district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any order

of the court). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) That the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a service packet including

a copy of this Order, a copy of the "First Amended Complaint" (Document #5) (Amended

Complaint), and both a summons and request for waiver forms for Defendants Joseph

Arpaio, Tracy Haggard, and Bill Williams;

(2) That Plaintiff SHALL COMPLETE AND RETURN the service packet to the Clerk

of the Court within twenty (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) That if Plaintiff does NOT either obtain a waiver of service of summons or complete

service of the summons and Amended Complaint on a Defendant within one hundred and

twenty (120) days of the date the Complaint was filed, or within sixty (60) days of the filing

of this Order, whichever is later, the ACTION MAY BE DISMISSED as to Defendant

pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 16.2(b)(3)(B)(i) of

the Local Rules of Civil Procedure (LRCiv);

(4) That the United States Marshal SHALL RETAIN the summons, a copy of the

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

(5) That the United States Marshal SHALL NOTIFY Defendants Joseph Arpaio, Tracy

Haggard, and Bill Williams of the commencement of this action and REQUEST WAIVER

OF SERVICE pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The notice to

Defendants shall include a copy of this Order. The Marshal shall file waivers of service of

the summons or requests for waivers that are returned as undeliverable as soon as they are

Case 2:04-cv-00736-SMM-BPV Document 7 Filed 11/09/05 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 -

received. If a waiver of service of summons is not returned by a Defendant to the Marshall

within thirty (30) days from the date the request for waiver was sent by the Marshal, the

Marshal shall:

(a) Personally serve copies of the summons, Amended Complaint (Document

#5), and this Order upon the Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

(b) Within ten (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 shall be

enumerated on the return of service form (USM-285) and shall include the

costs incurred by the Marshal for photocopying additional copies of the

summons, 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) That if a Defendant agrees to waive service of the summons and Amended

Complaint, the Defendant SHALL RETURN the signed waiver form to the United

States Marshal, not to Plaintiff; 

(7) That Defendants Joseph Arpaio, Tracy Haggard, and Bill Williams SHALL

ANSWER the 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) That any answer or responsive pleading SHALL STATE the specific Defendant(s) by

name on whose behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer or responsive pleading

that does not identify the specific Defendant(s) by name on whose behalf it is filed; 

(9) That a clear, legible copy of every pleading or other document filed SHALL

Case 2:04-cv-00736-SMM-BPV Document 7 Filed 11/09/05 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 -

ACCOMPANY each original pleading or other document filed with the Clerk for use by the

District Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom the case is assigned. See LRCiv 5.4. Failure

to submit a copy along with the original pleading or document will result in the

pleading or document being stricken without further notice to Plaintiff;

(10) That Plaintiff SHALL SERVE upon Defendants, or if appearance has been entered

by counsel, upon the attorney, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted

for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original document and copy,

to be filed with the Clerk of the Court, a certificate stating the date a true and correct copy

of the pleading or document was mailed to Defendant or the counsel. Any paper received

by a District Court Judge or Magistrate Judge which has not been filed with the Clerk of the

Court may be disregarded by the Court; 

(11) That at all times during the pendency of this action, Plaintiff SHALL

IMMEDIATELY ADVISE the Court and the United States Marshal of any change of address

and its effective date. Such notice shall be captioned “NOTICE OF CHANGE OF

ADDRESS.” The notice shall contain only information pertaining to the change of address

and its effective date, except that if Plaintiff has been released from custody, the notice

should so indicate. The notice shall not include any motions for any other relief. Plaintiff

shall serve a copy of the notice on all opposing parties. Failure to file a NOTICE OF

CHANGE OF ADDRESS may result in the dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b);

(12) That this matter is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco pursuant

to LRCiv 72.1 and 72.2 for further proceedings.

DATED this 7th day of November, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-00736-SMM-BPV Document 7 Filed 11/09/05 Page 6 of 6