Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02415/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02415-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Tyson S. White, by and through his 

guardian, Rolly White, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 12-2415-PHX-RCB (JFM) 

 O R D E R 

I. Procedural History 

On October 19, 2012, Plaintiff Tyson S. White, by and through his guardian, Rolly 

White, who is represented by attorney Scott H. Zwillinger, has filed a Complaint in the 

Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, against Defendants State of Arizona, 

Charles S. Ryan, Robert C. Patton, Tara Diaz, Madeline Perkins, John Osborn, Sergeant 

Putnam, Doreen Nue, Jennifer Repp, Jose Buendia, and a variety of fictitiously named 

defendants. On November 9, 2012, Defendant State of Arizona, who is represented by 

Assistant Arizona Attorney General Jonathan Weisbard, filed a Notice of Removal 

(Doc. 1). 

II. Removal

 A state court defendant may remove to federal court any civil action brought in the 

state court over which the federal district courts would have original jurisdiction. 28 

Case 2:12-cv-02415-JJT Document 6 Filed 01/16/13 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

U.S.C. § 1441(a). Plaintiff brings his lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Arizona 

law. This Court’s jurisdiction extends to such claims. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a). 

Removal, therefore, is appropriate. 

III. Procedural Defect

 All proper defendants in a state-court action must join in or consent to the notice 

of removal. Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir.1999), 

superceded in unrelated part by statute as stated in Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical 

Co., 443 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2006). Defendant State of Arizona indicates on the 

Supplemental Cover Sheet (Doc. 1-2) that Defendants Ryan, Patton, Neu, Buendia, 

Putnam, and Repp were served prior to removal, but nothing in the Notice of Removal 

states or suggests that these Defendants have joined in or consented to the removal. 

 “Where fewer than all the defendants have joined in a removal action, the 

removing party has the burden under section 1446(a) to explain affirmatively the absence 

of any co-defendants in the notice of removal.” Id. Defendant State of Arizona has 

failed to do so. The Notice of Removal, therefore, appears to be procedurally defective. 

See Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1193 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 However, this defect is waiveable, see Vasquez v. North County Transit Dist., 292 

F.3d 1049, 1060 n.5 (9th Cir. 2002), and the Court cannot sua sponte remand based on a 

non-jurisdictional defect in removal. Kelton Arms Condominium Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. 

Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003). Because Plaintiff did not file a 

timely motion to remand, the Court will proceed to screen Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

IV. 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). 

Case 2:12-cv-02415-JJT Document 6 Filed 01/16/13 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

V. Complaint 

 In his four-count Complaint, Plaintiff raises claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

Arizona tort law regarding an assault on Plaintiff by prison gang affiliates in the 

recreation yard at the Arizona State Prison-Lewis (ASPC-Lewis) Stiner Unit, which 

caused Plaintiff severe and permanent brain damage. Plaintiff alleges that the assault 

continued until the assaulting inmates decided to stop because, at the time of the assault, 

no corrections officers were in the recreation yard, no corrections officers were in the 

guard tower that looked into the recreation yard, and no corrections officers were 

watching the recreation yard on any of the installed security cameras. 

 Plaintiff contends that Defendants Repp, Buendia, and Putnam knew that inmate 

assaults frequently occur in the recreation yard, the Stiner Unit was understaffed and 

overcrowded, security cameras are routinely inoperative or unmanned, the guard towers 

are unmanned, and no one was watching the inmates on the yard when the assault 

occurred. Plaintiff asserts that although Defendants Repp and Buendia were assigned to 

the recreation yard, they abandoned their posts to attend to other matters and did not 

request that other officers cover their assignments. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant 

Putnam was Defendants Repp and Buendia’s supervisor and was responsible for ensuring 

that they performed their job duties. Plaintiff claims Defendant Putnam knew or should 

have known that they abandoned their posts and failed to order them back to their posts 

or assign replacement officers. 

 Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Neu used the Arizona Department of Corrections 

electronic inmate management system to obtain personal information about Plaintiff and 

provided that information to the inmates who assaulted him. Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendant Neu knew or should have known that providing this information placed 

Plaintiff in grave and imminent danger of being harmed. 

 Plaintiff contends that Defendants Ryan, Patton, Diaz, Perkins, and Osborn knew 

or should have known that the Stiner Unit was unsecure and improperly supervised and 

presented an imminent and grave danger to inmates, yet failed to take steps to ameliorate 

Case 2:12-cv-02415-JJT Document 6 Filed 01/16/13 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

the danger. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants Ryan, Patton, Diaz, Perkins, and 

Osborn were aware of the threat to inmates and staff by criminal gangs, yet failed to 

implement appropriate policies and procedures to address that threat. In addition, 

Plaintiff contends that Defendants Ryan, Diaz, Perkins, and Osborn knew that Defendant 

Neu had previously failed to perform her job properly in the past because Defendant Neu 

had been demoted for poor and improper job performance, yet Defendants Ryan, Diaz, 

Perkins, Patton, and Osborn allowed her be assigned to a job where she had access to 

sensitive and confidential inmate information. 

 In Count One, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Repp, Buendia, Putnam, and Neu 

violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights because they were deliberately indifferent 

to Plaintiff’s safety and well-being and, as a result, Plaintiff was severely and 

permanently injured. In Count Two, he claims that Defendants Ryan, Patton, Diaz, 

Perkins, and Osborn’s conduct was objectively unreasonable, maliciously and 

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and without regard to the 

likelihood that harm would result. He claims they failed to operate ASPC-Lewis and the 

Stiner Unit in a manner that would provide a safe and secure environment for inmates 

housed there; failed to promulgate and implement proper and effective policies and 

procedures; failed to conduct regular inspections and reviews to ensure that the Stiner 

Unit was operated in a safe manner; failed to hire, train, retain, supervise, discipline, 

counsel, and control subordinate employees; failed to ensure inmates are appropriately 

housed; and failed to ensure that the Stiner Unit was not overpopulated and was 

sufficiently staffed. 

 In Count Three, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants were negligent and grossly 

negligent. In Count Four, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants State of Arizona, Ryan, 

Patton, Diaz, Osborn, and Perkins were negligent in hiring, training, supervising, 

disciplining, and terminating ADOC employees, officers, agents, and independent 

contractors. 

 Plaintiff seeks a jury trial, monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and 

Case 2:12-cv-02415-JJT Document 6 Filed 01/16/13 Page 4 of 5
- 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 

his attorney’s fees and cost costs. 

 The Court will require Defendants to answer the Complaint.

IT IS ORDERED: 

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

complete service of the Summons and Complaint on any unserved Defendants 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). 

 (2) Defendants 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. 

 (3) 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. 

 (4) 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 14th day of January, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02415-JJT Document 6 Filed 01/16/13 Page 5 of 5