Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00390/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00390-0/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 - 1 -

WO RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wayne Taylor, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-390-PHX-NVW (JRI)

ORDER

On February 1, 2005, Wayne Taylor (Plaintiff), presently confined in the Maricopa

County Estrella Jail in Phoenix, Arizona (Estrella Jail), filed with the Clerk of the Court a pro

se "Civil Rights Complaint By A Prisoner" (Document #1) (Complaint). Plaintiff did not pay

the one hundred and fifty dollar ($150.00) filing fee, but filed an uncertified "Application To

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

with the Complaint which was insufficient to support the request to proceed in forma

pauperis.

By Order filed February 22, 2005 (Document #3), Plaintiff's deficient Application To

Proceed was denied without prejudice and Plaintiff was given thirty (30) days to pay the one

hundred and fifty dollar ($150.00) filing fee, or in the alternative, to file with the Court a

new, certified Application to Proceed, using the form included with the Order, and a certified

Case 2:05-cv-00390-NVW--JRI Document 5 Filed 09/30/05 Page 1 of 9
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 -

copy of his inmate trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the six (6)

months immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint.

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FILING FEE

On March 16, 2005, Plaintiff filed a new, certified Application To Proceed (Document #4)

and an Inmate Account Statement ("Account Statement"). Plaintiff’s certified Application

To Proceed and Account Statement make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed will be granted. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee.

Effective February 7, 2005, the filing fee for a civil rights action increased from one hundred

and fifty dollars ($150.00) to two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00). See 28 U.S.C. § 1914,

amended by, Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809,

Sec. 307 (December 8, 2004). Plaintiff’s Complaint, however, is not subject to the increased

fee because Plaintiff filed his Complaint prior to February 7, 2005. Accordingly, Plaintiff

is obligated to pay only the one hundred and fifty dollar ($150.00) filing fee. 

Based on the average monthly balance in Plaintiff’s account for three (3) months

preceding the filing of the Complaint, an initial partial filing fee of twenty-one dollars

($21.00) will be assessed by this Order. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

By separate order, the Court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial

filing fee from Plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter,

Plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent (20%) of the preceding

month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s trust account. These payments will be forwarded by

the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in Plaintiff’s account

exceeds ten dollars ($10.00), until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Plaintiff should take notice that if he is released before the filing fee is paid in full, he must

pay the remaining unpaid amount of the filing fee within one hundred and twenty (120) days

of the date of his release. If Plaintiff fails to pay the remainder of the filing fee within one

hundred and twenty (120) days of the date of his release, the action will be dismissed, unless

Case 2:05-cv-00390-NVW--JRI Document 5 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 9
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 -

Plaintiff shows good cause, in writing, why he is unable to pay the remainder of the filing

fee.

Plaintiff also should take notice that a prisoner may not bring a civil action without

complete prepayment of the appropriate filing fee if the prisoner has brought, on three (3) or

more occasions, an action or appeal in a federal court that was dismissed as frivolous, as

malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner

is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

STATUTORY SCREENING OF PRISONER COMPLAINTS

The Court is required to screen 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).

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 the complaint before dismissal of the

action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court

is required to grant leave to amend "if a complaint can possibly be saved," but not if the

Complaint "lacks merit entirely." Id. at 1129. A court therefore should grant leave to amend

if the pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, or if it appears at all possible

that the defect can be corrected. Id. at 1130.

The Court should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type of

advice "would undermine the district judges' role as impartial decisionmakers." Pliler v.

Ford, 124 S.Ct. 2441, 2446 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131, n.13 (declining to

decide whether court was required to inform litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff's Complaint

will be dismissed with leave to amend because the Complaint may possibly be saved by

Case 2:05-cv-00390-NVW--JRI Document 5 Filed 09/30/05 Page 3 of 9
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 -

amendment.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges one (1) count in the Complaint. (Complaint at 4). In Count I Plaintiff

alleges that he has been subjected to unhealthy, unsanitary living conditions, overcrowding,

a lack of detention staff, a lack of medical staff, and a lack of recreation. (Complaint at 4).

Named as Defendant in the Complaint is Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County.

(Complaint at 1-2).

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. (Complaint at 7).

FAILURE TO LINK DEFENDANT

To state a viable constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must show an

affirmative link between the alleged injury and the conduct of an individual Defendant.

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 

To state a claim against a state official, the civil rights complainant must allege that the

official personally participated in the constitutional deprivation, or that a state supervisory

official was aware of the widespread abuses and with deliberate indifference to the inmate's

constitutional rights failed to take action to prevent further misconduct. King v. Atiyeh, 814

F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1987); See also Monell v. New York City Department of Social

Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Williams v. Cash, 836 F.2d 1318, 1320 (11th Cir. 1988).

There is no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a theory of respondeat superior, and

therefore, a defendant’s position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated a

plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not impose liability. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691; West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 54 n.12 (1988); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723

F.2d 675, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1984).

Plaintiff does not allege in Count I of the Complaint that Defendant Arpaio personally

participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights nor does he allege that

Defendant was aware of widespread abuses and failed to act. 

Case 2:05-cv-00390-NVW--JRI Document 5 Filed 09/30/05 Page 4 of 9
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 -

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must show that the conduct of

the Defendants deprived him of a constitutional right. Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350,

1354 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1020 (1986). In his Complaint,

Plaintiff fails to allege any violation of a specific constitutional right.

Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to the allege in Count I that the conditions in the Durango

Jail create the "wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain" as required to state a Fourteenth

or Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,

347 (1981). The inquiry with respect to pretrial detainees is whether the prison conditions

amount to “punishment” without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). Generally, a prison's "obligation under the

[E]ighth [A]mendment is at an end if it furnishes sentenced prisoners with adequate food,

clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety." Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d

1237, 1246 (9th Cir.1982) (quotations omitted). However, this does not mean that federal

courts can or should interfere whenever prisoners are inconvenienced or suffer de minimis

injuries. See Bell, 441 U.S. at 539 n.21 (noting that a de minimis level of imposition does

not rise to a constitutional violation).

With regard to his medical claim, Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing Defendant acted

with “deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs" in violation of the Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendments. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Deliberate

indifference may occur if “prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical

treatment.” Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988). A mere delay

in medical care, without more, is insufficient to state a claim against prison officials for

deliberate indifference. Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407

(9th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff must show the delay in treatment was harmful. Id. 

The indifference must be substantial, and the conduct must rise to a level of “unnecessary

and wanton infliction of pain.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. Inadequate treatment due to

Case 2:05-cv-00390-NVW--JRI Document 5 Filed 09/30/05 Page 5 of 9
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 -

malpractice or even gross negligence does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim of deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must allege that a specific defendant,

despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff, failed to take

reasonable measures to abate the harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994). The

alleged constitutional deprivation must be, “objectively, ‘sufficiently serious’” i.e., the

official’s act or omission must result in the denial of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s

necessities.” Id. at 834. Further, the prison official must have a “sufficiently culpable state

of mind,” i.e., he must act with deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety. Id. The

Supreme Court has further defined this 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. at 837.

Lastly, Plaintiff has failed to allege that he was injured by the actions or inactions of the

Defendant.

DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (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 (9th Cir. 1982); Rhodes v. Robinson, 612

F.2d 766, 772 (3d Cir. 1979). Further, a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may

not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled. Ivey, 673 F.2d at 268.

Because Plaintiff has failed to affirmatively link any injuries with the conduct of any

specific, named Defendant, and has failed to allege a constitutional violation, Plaintiff’s

Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. However, in

keeping with "the rule favoring liberality in amendments to pleadings," the Court will

exercise its discretion and allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, if he so desires, to

Case 2:05-cv-00390-NVW--JRI Document 5 Filed 09/30/05 Page 6 of 9
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 -

show what constitutional rights he has been deprived of, how the conduct of proper

defendants deprived him of said rights, what injury, if any, he has suffered as a result of the

activities of the defendants, and how he has exhausted his administrative remedies. Noll v.

Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).

If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he should take notice that an amended

complaint supersedes the original complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896

F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the original pleading is treated as

nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Thus, causes of action alleged in an original

complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived. King v. Atiyeh, 814

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Any amended complaint filed by Plaintiff must be retyped or rewritten in its entirety on

the current, Court-approved form included with this Order and may not incorporate any part

of the original Complaint by reference. See Rule 15.1(a)(2), Local Rule of Civil Procedure

(LRCiv). If Plaintiff cannot fit all of his supporting facts in favor of a particular count on the

Court-approved form, then he may continue on an attachment, but each matter on any

attachment must be clearly referenced to a particular count on the Court-approved form, and

be numbered appropriately. Plaintiff may only address one (1) issue in each count. 

WARNING

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

action will be dismissed without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (district

court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any order of the court). Moreover,

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 of

this action will count as a "strike" under the "three strikes" provision of the Prison Litigation

Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Case 2:05-cv-00390-NVW--JRI Document 5 Filed 09/30/05 Page 7 of 9
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 - 8 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) That Plaintiff’s "Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis By A Prisoner Civil

(Non-Habeas)" (Document #4) is GRANTED; 

(2) That Plaintiff is OBLIGATED to pay the statutory filing fee of one hundred and fifty

dollars ($150.00) for this action. Plaintiff is ASSESSED an initial partial filing fee of

twenty-one dollars ($21.00). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this

Court’s Order to the Maricopa County Sheriff filed concurrently herewith; 

(3) That Plaintiff's Civil Rights Complaint By A Prisoner (Document #1) ("Complaint")

is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. Plaintiff SHALL HAVE thirty (30) days from the filing date of this 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. The

amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its entirety on the current, Courtapproved form included with this Order, may not incorporate any part of the original

Complaint by reference, and must contain Plaintiff’s original signature. If Plaintiff fails to

file the amended complaint on a current, Court-approved form, the amended complaint will

be stricken, and the action dismissed without further notice to Plaintiff. Any amended

complaint submitted by Plaintiff should be clearly designated as an amended complaint on

the face of the document;

(4) That the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter a judgment of dismissal with

prejudice of this action, without further notice to Plaintiff, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended

complaint within thirty (30) days from the filing date of this Order. Upon entry of judgment,

the Clerk of the Court SHALL MAKE an entry on the docket in this matter indicating that

Case 2:05-cv-00390-NVW--JRI Document 5 Filed 09/30/05 Page 8 of 9
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 - 9 -

the dismissal of this action falls within the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);

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

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;

(6) 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. 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); 

(7) That the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a current, Courtapproved form for filing a civil rights complaint by a prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

DATED this 30th day of September, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-00390-NVW--JRI Document 5 Filed 09/30/05 Page 9 of 9