Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01438/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01438-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 

TEMPSREF 

WO KM 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Tommie Lee Henderson, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

No. CV 12-1438-PHX-GMS (JFM) 

ORDER 

On July 3, 2012, Plaintiff Tommie Lee Henderson, Jr., who is confined in the 

Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an October 10, 

2012 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint 

because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an 

amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 

 On October 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. In a November 

26, 2012 Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint because Plaintiff had 

failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended 

complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 

 On December 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 14). 

The Court will order Defendant Arpaio to answer Count One of the Second Amended 

Complaint and will dismiss the remaining claim without prejudice. 

Case 2:12-cv-01438-GMS Document 16 Filed 03/12/13 Page 1 of 6
- 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 

I. 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 2:12-cv-01438-GMS Document 16 Filed 03/12/13 Page 2 of 6
- 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 

II. Second Amended Complaint 

 Plaintiff names Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio as Defendant in the 

Second Amended Complaint and raises two claims for relief. 

 In Count One, Plaintiff claims that his rights under the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA) were violated when jail staff denied him assistance in obtaining his attorney’s 

phone number. Plaintiff claims that he suffers from memory problems as the result of a 

learning disability, diagnosed chemical imbalance, and a head injury. Plaintiff claims 

that upon his arrest, a police officer assisted Plaintiff in obtaining the phone number of 

Plaintiff’s attorney and wrote it on a piece of paper. When Plaintiff was booked into the 

Maricopa County Jail, Plaintiff’s personal possessions, including the phone number, were 

confiscated. Plaintiff claims that jail staff refused to assist him in obtaining the phone 

number and that as a result, he was excluded from using the phones, canteen, and mail. 

Specifically, Plaintiff states that he was unable to use the phone because he could not call 

an outside party set up the required pre-pay service. Plaintiff claims that he was therefore 

denied participation in the jail’s services because of his disability. 

 In Count Two, Plaintiff claims that the jail’s failure to assist him and to comply 

with the ADA violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. 

 Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and money damages. 

III. Failure to State a Claim

 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 

v. Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

Further, a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential 

elements of the claim that were not initially pled. Id. 

 In Count Two, Plaintiff fails to adequately allege how Defendant Arpaio’s policies 

violated his due process rights, what injuries resulted from Defendant Arpaio’s policies, 

or how his equal protection rights were violated by the policies. The Court will therefore 

dismiss Count Two for failure to state a claim. 

Case 2:12-cv-01438-GMS Document 16 Filed 03/12/13 Page 3 of 6
- 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 

IV. Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required 

 Liberally construed, Plaintiff has adequately stated an ADA claim in Count One. 

The Court will require Defendant Arpaio to answer Count One. 

V. 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 serve Defendant, 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). 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:12-cv-01438-GMS Document 16 Filed 03/12/13 Page 4 of 6
- 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 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) Count Two is dismissed without prejudice. 

 (2) Defendant Arpaio must answer Count One of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

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

Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 14), this Order, and both summons and request for 

waiver forms for Defendant Arpaio. 

 (4) Plaintiff must complete and 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. 

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

complete service of the Summons and Second Amended Complaint on 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv 

16.2(b)(2)(B)(i). 

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

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

 (7) 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. 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 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, Second Amended 

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

Rules of Civil Procedure; and 

Case 2:12-cv-01438-GMS Document 16 Filed 03/12/13 Page 5 of 6
- 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 

(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, Second 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) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise 

ordered by the Court. 

 (8) If Defendant agrees to waive service of the Summons and Second 

Amended Complaint, he must return the signed waiver forms to the United States 

Marshal, not the Plaintiff.

 (9) Defendant must answer the Second 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. 

 (10) 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 12th day of March, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-01438-GMS Document 16 Filed 03/12/13 Page 6 of 6