Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01325/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01325-1/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 

MDR 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Joseph Eldridge, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CO II J.D. Schroeder, 

Defendant. 

No. CV 14-1325-PHX-DGC (ESW) 

ORDER 

On June 13, 2014, Plaintiff Joseph Eldridge, who is confined in the Arizona State 

Prison Complex-Eyman in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and two deficient Applications to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis. In a June 19, 2014 Order, the Court denied the deficient Applications 

to Proceed and gave Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the filing and administrative fees or 

file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 

On June 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed a third Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis. On July 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Protective Order. In an October 

3, 2014 Order, the Court denied the deficient Application to Proceed and the Motion for 

Protective Order and gave Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the filing and administrative fees 

or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 

On October 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a fourth Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (Doc. 11). The Court will grant the fourth Application to Proceed and will 

order Defendant Schroeder to answer the Complaint. 

Case 2:14-cv-01325-DGC Document 14 Filed 11/25/14 Page 1 of 7
- 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. Fourth Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

 Plaintiff’s fourth Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. 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 not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory 

filing 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. 

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 

Case 2:14-cv-01325-DGC Document 14 Filed 11/25/14 Page 2 of 7
- 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 

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)). 

III. Complaint

 In his one-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Defendant Correctional Officer II J.D. 

Schroeder. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.

 Plaintiff asserts that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated because 

Defendant Schroeder engaged in excessive force. Plaintiff contends that he was in his 

cell, doing legal work and getting ready to go out for recreation, when Defendant 

Schroeder came to Plaintiff’s cell door. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Schroeder asked 

Plaintiff if he wanted “to talk that ‘shit’ [Plaintiff] was talking in the Mental Health 

Watch Pod.”1

 Plaintiff contends that Defendant Schroeder had the control room operator 

open the cell door and then Defendant Schroeder entered the cell; pushed Plaintiff onto 

his bed; hit Plaintiff several times in the face, upper body, and upper legs and arms; 

dumped the contents of Plaintiff’s legal and property boxes on the floor and stepped on 

the boxes; and kicked and hit Plaintiff until he lost consciousness. Plaintiff alleges that 

he did not do or say anything to cause Defendant Schroeder to beat and kick him. 

 Plaintiff claims that a correctional officer and a lieutenant took Plaintiff to the 

medical unit and took pictures of Plaintiff’s injuries and his cell. Plaintiff contends that 

his shoulder was dislocated and he continues to have pain in his head and chest and 

ringing in his ears.

 

1

 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Schroeder threatened to kill Plaintiff when 

Plaintiff was in the Watch Pod and that Plaintiff had reported the threat to a corrections officer, a sergeant, the warden, and a deputy warden. 

Case 2:14-cv-01325-DGC Document 14 Filed 11/25/14 Page 3 of 7
- 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 

 Plaintiff has stated an excessive force claim against Defendant Schroeder. The 

Court will require Defendant Schroeder to answer the Complaint. 

IV. 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

 Because Plaintiff is currently confined in an Arizona Department of Corrections 

unit subject to General Order 14-17, Plaintiff is not required to serve Defendant with a 

copy of every document he files or to submit an additional copy of every filing for use by 

the Court, as would ordinarily be required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 and 

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.4. If Plaintiff is transferred to a unit other than one 

subject to General Order 14-17, he will be notified of the requirements for service and 

copies for the Court that are required for inmates whose cases are not subject to General 

Order 14-17. 

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 2:14-cv-01325-DGC Document 14 Filed 11/25/14 Page 4 of 7
- 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) Plaintiff’s fourth Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 11) is 

granted. 

 (2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government 

agency, Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is not assessed an initial partial 

filing fee. 

(3) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff this Order, and a copy of the 

Marshal’s Process Receipt & Return form (USM-285) and Notice of Lawsuit & Request 

for Waiver of Service of Summons form for Defendant Schroeder. 

 (4) Plaintiff must complete1

 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 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 

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 

 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 2:14-cv-01325-DGC Document 14 Filed 11/25/14 Page 5 of 7
- 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 

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. 

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

he must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, not the 

Plaintiff. 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 2:14-cv-01325-DGC Document 14 Filed 11/25/14 Page 6 of 7
- 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 

 (9) 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. 

 (10) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett 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 25th day of November, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-01325-DGC Document 14 Filed 11/25/14 Page 7 of 7