Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02027/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02027-0/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 

KAB 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Ronald M. Feldmeier, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

P. Hauser, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 13-2027-PHX-DGC (BSB) 

ORDER 

On October 4, 2013, Plaintiff Ronald M. Feldmeier, who is confined in the La 

Palma Correctional Center in Eloy, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint 

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

Motion to Join State Tort Action and Federal 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action. On November 4, 

2013, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and gave 

Plaintiff 30 days to pay the filing and administrative fees or file a complete Application 

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On November 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complete 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application 

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, deny the Motion to Join State Tort Action and Federal 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 Action, dismiss Defendant Unknown Emergency Call Box Staff, and order 

the remaining Defendants to answer the Complaint. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

 Plaintiff’s 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). 

Case 2:13-cv-02027-DGC Document 9 Filed 12/30/13 Page 1 of 9
- 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 

The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $13.53. The remainder of the fee will 

be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 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). While Rule 8 does not demand 

detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation 

omitted). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citation omitted). 

 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (citation omitted). 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. (citation omitted). 

“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a contextspecific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and 

common sense.” Id. at 679 (citation omitted). 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, 

Case 2:13-cv-02027-DGC Document 9 Filed 12/30/13 Page 2 of 9
- 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 

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 Complaint, Plaintiff alleges one count. Defendants are P. Hauser, Case 

Manager of the La Palma Correctional Center, R. Williams, Unit Manager of the La 

Palma Correctional Center, and Unknown Emergency Call Box Staff on duty on October 

5, 2011 at the La Palma Correctional Center, named as Unknown John Doe(s) staffers of 

the CCA at LaPalma Correctional Center. 

 Plaintiff alleges that his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and 

unusual punishment was violated as follows: In late July 2011, Plaintiff was assigned a 

new cellmate, M.K. Wilson (“Wilson”), at La Palma Correctional Center. That same 

day, Wilson exhibited anger and hostility toward Plaintiff, making “demands and 

threatening postures.” A housing unit correctional officer told Plaintiff to speak with 

Defendant Hauser about his problems with Wilson. Plaintiff then met with Defendant 

Hauser and told him that his cellmate had “a big chip on his shoulder,” was willing to use 

threatening postures, and that Wilson’s youth and “enormous muscles” intimidated 

Plaintiff. At that time, Plaintiff asked Defendant Hauser if Wilson previously had 

problems with cellmates and requested that either Plaintiff or Wilson be moved to 

another cell. Hauser told Plaintiff to let him know if the problem worsened. 

 Wilson’s “intimidation, tantrums, and threatening ways continued through 

August.” Wilson told Plaintiff of his problems with “anger issues” and stated that his 

own family feared his violent rages. 

 In September 2011, Wilson threatened to kill Plaintiff. Plaintiff told Defendant 

Hauser of Plaintiff’s growing fear of a violent attack by Wilson, who was twice 

Plaintiff’s strength and half his age. Defendant Hauser told Plaintiff he was too busy and 

sent him away. Dissatisfied with that answer, Plaintiff decided to take his complaint “up 

Case 2:13-cv-02027-DGC Document 9 Filed 12/30/13 Page 3 of 9
- 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 chain of command.” 

 On September 21, 2011, Plaintiff met with Defendant Williams. Williams listened 

to Plaintiff’s complaints and told him to put the details of the complaints in writing on a 

CDCR Form-22 (the “Form”). That same day, Plaintiff prepared the Form. On 

September 22, 2011, Plaintiff saw Defendant Hauser. Hauser took the Form from 

Plaintiff and told Plaintiff that he would hand-deliver the Form to Defendant Williams. 

 During the next two days, Wilson’s behavior worsened. Plaintiff told Defendant 

Hauser about the worsening behavior and asked if there was an answer to his complaint 

and if there would be a cell change. Defendant Hauser told Plaintiff that there was no 

answer to the complaint yet and that a cell change would not occur that day. 

 On September 26, 2011, Plaintiff told Defendant Hauser that he was afraid and 

described Wilson’s “escalating threats and verbal assaults.” At that time, Plaintiff again 

requested a new cell for either him or Wilson. Plaintiff saw his Form on Defendant 

Hauser’s desk and asked Defendant Hauser the status of the complaint he filed with 

Defendant Williams. Defendant Hauser explained that Defendant Williams tasked 

Defendant Hauser with handling the problem. Defendant Hauser said he would look into 

Plaintiff’s request for a new cell, but that no cells were available. Plaintiff requested that 

he switch cells with any other inmate, but Defendant Hauser did not respond. 

 On two more occasions, Plaintiff attempted to speak with Defendant Hauser about 

his problems with Wilson, but Defendant Hauser refused to speak with Plaintiff and sent 

him away, stating that he was “too busy.” 

 On October 5, 2011, Wilson attacked Plaintiff while Plaintiff was lying in his bed. 

The attack lasted between ten to twenty minutes and Plaintiff was beaten until he was 

unconscious. Twice during the beating, Plaintiff tried to summon help via the in-cell 

emergency call box, but no staff answered and there was no response to Plaintiff’s 

repeated calls for help. As a result of the attack, Plaintiff suffered a concussion, a 

fractured eye orbit/cheekbone, fractured nasal bones, fractured septal cartilage, 

deformation of the nose and eye orbit, lacerations, contusions, abrasions, hearing loss in 

Case 2:13-cv-02027-DGC Document 9 Filed 12/30/13 Page 4 of 9
- 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 right ear, headaches/sinus pain, vertigo, loss of sleep, mental focus and memory, 

social adjustment difficulties, emotional trauma, right posterior/lateral rib fractures, 

dorsal/lumbar spinal subluxations, limited movement in his right wrist, 

tissue/musculature damage to his right wrist, tissue/musculature damage to his right 

forearm, and tissue/musculature damage to his left forearm, hand, and wrist. As a result 

of these allegations, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and unspecified 

declaratory relief. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim 

 “[P]rison officials have a duty . . . to protect prisoners from violence at the hands 

of other prisoners.’” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) (quotation and 

citations omitted). “It is not, however, every injury suffered by one prisoner at the hands 

of another that translates into constitutional liability for prison officials responsible for 

the victim’s safety.” Id. at 834. To state a claim under § 1983 for failure to protect 

inmates from attacks by other inmates, an inmate must allege facts to support that he was 

incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of harm and that prison officials 

were “deliberately indifferent” to those risks. Id. at 834-35. To adequately allege 

deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must allege facts to support that a defendant knew of, 

but disregarded, an excessive risk to inmate safety. Id. at 837. That is, “the official must 

both [have been] aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a 

substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed], and he must also [have] draw[n] the inference.” 

Id. 

 In this case, Plaintiff failed to allege facts demonstrating that Unknown 

Emergency Call Box Staff were deliberately indifferent to an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s 

safety. Plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating that Defendant Unknown Emergency 

Call Box Staff heard Plaintiff’s summons on the in-cell call box. Plaintiff’s facts 

demonstrate, at best, that Defendant Unknown Staff were negligent in monitoring the call 

box. Negligence is insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim and the Court will 

dismiss Defendant Unknown Emergency Call Box Staff. 

Case 2:13-cv-02027-DGC Document 9 Filed 12/30/13 Page 5 of 9
- 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 

V. Claim for which an Answer will be Required 

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has adequately stated an Eighth Amendment claim 

for failure to protect against Defendants Williams and Hauser and the Court will require 

Defendants Williams and Hauser to respond to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim. 

VI. Motion to Join State Tort Action and Federal 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action 

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Join State Tort Action and Federal 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

Action. In his Motion, Plaintiff asserts that he filed a “State of Arizona tort claim in the 

County Court of Pinal, Arizona” and also filed the instant § 1983 complaint. Plaintiff 

asserts that these are “distinct filings based on the same events, facts and persons; [a]nd 

that, judicial expediency and economy may best be served by the joining of the two 

complaints.” (Doc. 3 at 1). 

 To the extent Plaintiff requests that the Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction 

over state tort claims based on its federal jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, 

Plaintiff should have set forth both sets of claims in the complaint he filed in this action. 

Because Plaintiff filed his state tort claims in state court, the state court has jurisdiction 

over those claims and this Court does not have jurisdiction to “join” those claims with the 

claims currently pending before this Court. See Ortolf v. Silver Bar Mines, Inc., 111 F.3d 

85, 87 (9th Cir. 1997) (“In a subsequent lawsuit involving claims with no independent 

basis for jurisdiction, a federal court lacks the threshold jurisdictional power that exists 

when ancillary claims are asserted in the same proceeding as the claims conferring 

federal jurisdiction.”) (quoting Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 355 (1996)). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Join State Tort Action and Federal 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

Action will be denied. 

VII. 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 

Case 2:13-cv-02027-DGC Document 9 Filed 12/30/13 Page 6 of 9
- 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 

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 Defendants, 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). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 7) is granted. 

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

agency, Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing 

fee of $13.53. 

 (3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Join State Tort Action and Federal 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

Action (Doc. 3) is denied.

 (4) Defendant Unknown Emergency Call Box Staff is dismissed without 

prejudice.

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

Case 2:13-cv-02027-DGC Document 9 Filed 12/30/13 Page 7 of 9
- 8 - 

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 

Complaint (Doc. 1), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for 

Defendants P. Hauser and R. Williams. 

 (6) 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. 

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

complete service of the Summons and Complaint on a 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 as to each Defendant not served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); 

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

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

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

 (9) The United States Marshal must notify Defendants 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 Defendants 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 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 

Case 2:13-cv-02027-DGC Document 9 Filed 12/30/13 Page 8 of 9
- 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 

TERMPSREF 

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. 

 (10) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and 

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

the Plaintiff.

 (11) 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. 

 (12) 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. 

 (13) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade 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 30th day of December, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-02027-DGC Document 9 Filed 12/30/13 Page 9 of 9