Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01188/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01188-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Dushan Stephan Nickolich II, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Arizona Community Protection and 

Treatment Center, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 13-1188-PHX-SMM 

 O R D E R 

Plaintiff Dushan Stephan Nickolich, who is currently held in the Arizona 

Community Protection and Treatment Center (ACPTC), a unit of the Arizona State 

Hospital (ASH), in Phoenix, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 19831

 and paid the filing and administrative fees.2 (Doc. 1, 6.) Plaintiff has 

 

1

 Plaintiff asserts that he brings this case under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal 

Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). A Bivens action may only be brought against persons acting under color of federal law. In this case, Plaintiff seeks relief against persons, or entities, acting under color of state law. Therefore, the case is properly treated as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

2

 This action was opened as a “prisoner” civil rights case and referred to the Court’s staff for review pursuant to LRCiv. 72.1(b). A “prisoner” is statutorily defined as “any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, 

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 1 of 27
- 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 

filed two motions inquiring about the status of this case, which will be granted to the 

extent set forth herein. (Doc. 5, 14.) Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, or 

alternatively, to stay this case pending Plaintiff’s state court special action, which is fully 

briefed. (Doc. 10.)3

 The Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint 

for failure to state a claim, but will grant Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint 

in which he attempts to cure the deficiencies in his Complaint. 

I. Pleading Standard

 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 

 sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(h). That is, a “prisoner” is a person who is “currently detained as a result of accusation, conviction, or sentence for a criminal offense.” 

Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 885, 886 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 

1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2000)). 

3

 Plaintiff contends that he is not a prisoner seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Defendants correctly argue that § 1983 is not limited to cases filed by prisoners. Because Plaintiff asserts a violation of his federal constitutional rights in his Complaint, the case is properly construed as being brought under § 1983 regardless of Plaintiff’s non-prisoner 

status. 

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 2 of 27
- 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 

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)). 

 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 a complaint before dismissal 

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

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim will be granted, 

but Plaintiff will be granted leave to file a first amended complaint in which he attempts 

to cure the deficiencies of his Complaint. 

II. Complaint 

Plaintiff alleges four counts for relief for violation of his First, Fifth, Eighth, and 

Fourteenth Amendment rights and state law violations. Plaintiff sues ACPTC; ASH; 

Corey Nelson, acting Deputy Director of the Arizona Department of Human Services; Dr. 

Gary Perrin, Psychology Administrator at ASH; Bruce McMorran, Director of ACPTC; 

Dr. Bradley Johnson, an ACPTC psychiatrist; and Erick D. Pearson, an ACPTC therapist. 

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive relief. 

Background 

 Plaintiff was convicted of sexual assault in Maricopa County Superior Court, 

case# CR1993-09121, and served a sentence in the custody of the Arizona Department of 

Corrections (ADC) from January 1996 until September 2009.4

 Plaintiff was subsequently 

civilly committed as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under Arizona Revised Statute 

(ARS) § 36-3701. Under Arizona law, conviction of sexual assault is a sexually violent 

 

4

 See http://www.azcorrections.gov/Inmate_DataSearch/results_Minh.aspx? Inmate Number=088080&LastName=NICKOLICH&FNMI=D&SearchType=SearchInet (last viewed Feb. 21, 2013). 

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 3 of 27
- 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 

offense under ARS § 36-3701(6) for which someone can be civilly committed. ARS 

§ 36-3704. Arizona’s SVP statute provides that a “court or jury shall determine beyond a 

reasonable doubt” if the person named in a petition for civil commitment “is a sexually 

violent person.” ARS § 36-3707(A). Thereafter: 

If the court or jury determines that the person is a sexually violent person, 

the court shall either: 

1. Commit the person to the custody of the department of health services 

for placement in a licensed facility under the supervision of the 

superintendent of the Arizona state hospital and shall receive care, 

supervision or treatment until the person’s mental disorder has so changed 

that the person would not be a threat to public safety if the person was 

conditionally released to a less restrictive alternative or was unconditionally 

discharged. 

2. Order that the person be released to a less restrictive alternative if the 

conditions under §§ 36-3710 and 36-3711 are met. 

ARS § 36-3707(B). 

Plaintiff alleges the following facts in his Complaint: “Defendants” attempted to 

have Plaintiff’s probation revoked in emails exchanged with Plaintiff’s adult probation 

officer (APO), Brian Bednar. On July 28, 2011, Plaintiff was arrested on a probation 

violation warrant. At a hearing on August 4, 2011 in Maricopa County Superior Court, 

the prosecutor stated that “they will not take Plaintiff [sic] back. They do not want 

Plaintiff [sic] back.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) On September 22, 2011, the violation charges were 

dismissed and Plaintiff was “returned” to Defendants’ custody at ACPTC.5

 

 

5

 Plaintiff, through counsel, filed a special action, case# LC2013-000291, in Maricopa County Superior Court, shortly before Plaintiff filed this case pro se, in which 

he alleged that he remained at ACPTC throughout the revocation proceedings. (Doc. 1, Ex. 1.) In the special action, a status hearing was held on July 11, 2014, 2014. See 

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Lower%20Court/072014/m6394646.pdf (last visited Aug. 27, 2014). At the hearing, the court set deadlines for expert discovery and continued the dispositive motion deadlines until December 18, 2014. Id. In addition 

to the special action, on April 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a civil complaint through counsel in Maricopa County Superior Court, case# CV2014-006863. See http://www.superior court.maricopa.gov/doc ket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2014-006863 (last visited Aug. 27, 2014). On July 23, 2014, the docket notes an intent to dismiss. 

Id. On June 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed another case through counsel, CV2014-007334 with a motion for injunctive relief. See http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/Civil 

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 4 of 27
- 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 

 Plaintiff contends that the ACPTC treatment program is the same for all of its 

residents and is “willfully inadequate, overly generalized,” and lacks clear direction in 

attaining goals. (Id. at 3.) He contends that Defendants have breached their duty under 

state law by failing to provide him individualized treatment necessary to eventually be 

released from civil commitment. He contends that Defendants’ failure to provide him 

individualized treatment renders his commitment punitive rather than therapeutic. 

 Plaintiff has previously filed a case in federal court concerning the alleged failure 

of entities and persons to provide him an individualized treatment plan and asserted that 

the failure to do so resulted in indefinite and perpetual civil commitment. See Nickolich 

v. ACPTC, No. CV12-2312-PHX-SMM, doc. 6. In the complaint in that case, Plaintiff 

alleged that: on August 4, 2011, the ACPTC, through counsel, stated that “‘. . . the State 

Hospital does not want him back’” and that “‘. . . the State Hospital will not take him 

back.’” (Id., doc. 1 at 3.) The Arizona Attorney General’s Office, on behalf of ACPTC, 

asked to meet with Plaintiff to discuss future treatment. Plaintiff met with ACPTC and 

the Attorney General’s representatives on August 1, 2012, but no treatment plan was 

presented. On August 8, 2012, ACPTC generated an appointment schedule, which it 

designated a treatment plan. On September 28, 2012, the ACPTC clinical team 

ostensibly “granted,” or agreed to prepare, an individualized treatment plan, but no 

treatment plan was actually provided. Plaintiff was designated as “non-status.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff contended that ACPTC had a legal duty under the Constitution and other federal 

law to provide him individualized treatment. He claimed that rather than provide him an 

individualized treatment plan, ACPTC was merely civilly incarcerating and warehousing 

him in violation of due process and equal protection and after he had already served his 

criminal sentence. He asserted that indefinite civil commitment constituted duplicative 

punishment in violation of the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause. Because 

 CourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2014-007334 (last visited Aug. 27, 2014). On June 13, 2014, the courtgranted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and denied the motion for injunctive relief “under the current complaint.” See http://www.court minutes.maricopa.gov/docs/ Civil/062014/m6362928.pdf (last visited Aug. 27, 2013). 

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 5 of 27
- 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 

Plaintiff filed that action in forma pauperis, the Court screened the complaint under 28 

U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim with leave to 

amend. The Court subsequently dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for failure 

to state a claim and dismissed the action. 

 In this case, as discussed above, Plaintiff has paid the filing fee and he is not a 

prisoner within the meaning of the PLRA. Defendants have moved for dismissal of the 

Complaint for failure to state a claim or for a stay under Younger. The Court will grant 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim, but will grant 

Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint. 

III. Failure to State a Claim

 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts supporting that (1) the 

conduct about which he complains was committed by a person acting under the color of 

state law and (2) the conduct deprived him of a federal constitutional or statutory right. 

Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989). In addition, a plaintiff must 

allege that he suffered a specific injury as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant 

and he must allege an affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that 

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

A. ACPTC and ASH

 Plaintiff names ACPTC and ASH as Defendants, but neither is a proper defendant 

under § 1983. Under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 

neither a state nor a state agency may be sued in federal court without its consent. 

Pennhurst St. Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Taylor v. List, 880 

F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Further, claims under § 1983 are directed at “persons.” 

A detention facility is not a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983. See Allison v. 

California Adult Auth., 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir.1969) (finding that California Adult 

Authority and San Quentin Prison not “person[s]” subject to suit under § 1983); Jones v. 

Lynchburg Adult Detention Ctr., No. 7:10-cv-0009, 2010 WL 227831 at *1 (W.D. Va. 

Jan. 19, 2010) (detention center is not a person); Brooks v. Pembroke City Jail, 722 

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 6 of 27
- 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 

F.Supp. 1294, 1301 (E.D.N.C. 1989)). Similarly, a state hospital or health agency is not a 

“person” for purposes of § 1983. See O’Haire v. Napa State Hosp., No. C07-0002-RMW 

(PR), 2009 WL 2447752 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2009). Neither the State of Arizona nor 

any State agency is a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of 

State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989) (holding that the term “person” as used in § 1983 did 

not include a State or State agency). Accordingly, ACPTC and ASH will be dismissed as 

Defendants. 

B. Individual Defendants 

Plaintiff also sues Nelson, Perrin, Johnson, McMorran, and Pearson. While these 

persons may be sued, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against any of them. 

 To state a claim against a defendant, “[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply 

conclusions [to] show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his 

civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). For an 

individual to be liable in his official capacity, a plaintiff must allege that the official acted 

as a result of a policy, practice, or custom. See Cortez v. County of Los Angeles, 294 F.3d 

1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2001). Further, there is no respondeat superior liability under 

§ 1983, so a defendant’s position as the supervisor of someone who allegedly violated a 

plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not make him liable. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 

436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. A supervisor in his individual 

capacity, “is only liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor 

participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to 

prevent them.” Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. 

 Plaintiff fails to allege specific facts to support that any individual Defendant 

directly violated his constitutional rights. He also fails to allege facts to support that any 

individual Defendant promulgated, endorsed, or enforced a policy, practice, or custom 

resulting in a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff thus fails to state a 

claim against any individual Defendant and they will be dismissed. 

/ / / 

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 7 of 27
- 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 

C. Double Jeopardy 

Plaintiff asserts that he is and has been denied an individualized treatment plan 

resulting in indefinite civil commitment in violation of various federal constitutional 

rights. He in part contends that such confinement violates the Fifth Amendment’s 

Double Jeopardy Clause. 

 In Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), the United States Supreme Court 

rejected Hendricks’ contention that the Kansas SVP Act violated Double Jeopardy. The 

Court determined that the Kansas SVP Act did not violate double jeopardy because it did 

not establish criminal proceedings and involuntary confinement under the Act was not 

punitive; rather, the Act created a civil commitment procedure and permitted release 

upon a showing that the confined person was no longer a danger to others. 521 U.S. at 

361-65. It further noted that commitment under the Kansas Act was only potentially

indefinite and that if the State sought to continue detention beyond a year, a court had to 

once again determine beyond a reasonable doubt that continued detention was 

appropriate under the same standard as the initial detention. Id. at 364. The Court 

rejected Hendricks’ contention that the Act’s alleged failure to offer “legitimate 

treatment” rendered confinement under the Act little more than disguised punishment. 

Id. at 365. It determined that under appropriate circumstances, and accompanied by 

proper procedures, commitment was a legitimate end of the civil law. Id. at 365-66. The 

Supreme Court further stated that while it had upheld state civil commitment statutes that 

aimed to both incapacitate and treat, the Supreme Court had 

never held that the Constitution prevents a State from civilly detaining 

those for whom no treatment is available, but who nevertheless pose a 

danger to others. A State could hardly be seen as furthering a “punitive” 

purpose by involuntarily confining persons afflicted with an untreatable, 

highly contagious disease. Accord, Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a 

Vapeur v. Louisiana Bd. of Health, 186 U.S. 380, 22 S.Ct. 811, 46 L.Ed. 

1209 (1902) (permitting involuntary quarantine of persons suffering from 

communicable diseases). Similarly, it would be of little value to require 

treatment as a precondition for civil confinement of the dangerously insane 

when no acceptable treatment existed. To conclude otherwise would 

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 8 of 27
- 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 

obligate a State to release certain confined individuals who were both 

mentally ill and dangerous simply because they could not be successfully 

treated for their afflictions. Cf. Greenwood v. United States, 350 U.S. 366, 

375, 76 S.Ct. 410, 415, 100 L.Ed. 412 (1956) (“The fact that at present 

there may be little likelihood of recovery does not defeat federal power to 

make this initial commitment of the petitioner”); O’Connor v. Donaldson, 

422 U.S. 563, 584, 95 S.Ct. 2486, 2498, 45 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975) (Burger, 

C.J., concurring) (“[I]t remains a stubborn fact that there are many forms of 

mental illness which are not understood, some which are untreatable in the 

sense that no effective therapy has yet been discovered for them, and that 

rates of ‘cure’ are generally low”). 

Id. at 366. It noted that even if treatment was ancillary to the purpose of the Kansas SVP 

Act, the Act required that care and treatment be provided to SVPs, not punishment. Id. at 

367. The Supreme Court held that the Kansas SVP Act did not, therefore, violate double 

jeopardy. 

 Arizona’s SVP Act provides in relevant part as follows: 

 A person who is committed . . . pursuant to this article shall receive 

care, supervision or treatment. The superintendent of the state hospital 

shall keep records detailing all medical, expert and professional care and 

treatment that a committed person receives and shall keep copies of all 

reports of periodic examinations that are made pursuant to this article. 

These records and reports shall be made available on request only to any of 

the following: 

1. The committed person. 

2. The committed person’s attorney. 

3. The county attorney or the attorney general. 

4. The court. 

5. On proper showing, an expert or professional person who demonstrates 

a need for access to the records or reports. 

6. Any mental health professional directly responsible or associated with 

the mental health professional who is directly responsible for the care, 

control, assessment or treatment of the committed person. 

ARS § 36-3712(B) (emphasis added). Further, Arizona’s SVP Act provides for 

procedural protections analogous to those under the Kansas Act at issue in Hendricks. 

Indeed, in Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779, 786 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999), the Arizona 

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 9 of 27
- 10 - 

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 

Court of Appeals stated that Arizona’s SVP Act “was patterned after statutes in other 

jurisdictions, many of which had been reviewed by their respective state appellate courts 

and found to be constitutional,” and found Arizona’s SVP Act similar to the Kansas SVP 

Act found constitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Id. at 787 (citing 

Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997)). The Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that 

Arizona’s SVP Act, like that at issue in Hendricks, was civil in nature and that 

confinement under Arizona’s SVP Act “is for treatment and protection of the public, not 

punishment. Id. at 793. The court observed that while detention under Arizona’s SVP 

Act was of uncertain length, the Act was not retributive and did not contain a scienter 

element, unlike to find criminal culpability. Id. at 792. Further, the court noted that the 

Act’s purposes were non-punitive by protecting the public from SVPs and treating those 

persons so that they may return to society. Id. The court concluded that the Act was not 

excessive in relation to its non-punitive purposes where some treatment is contemplated, 

as was the case in Hendricks, and where Arizona’s Act provided for alternatives less 

restrictive than full custodial detention. Id. at 792-93. 

 Arizona’s SVP Act is analogous to the act at issue in Hendricks, which the 

Supreme Court held did not violate double jeopardy. Further, Arizona’s SVP Act has 

been held by the state appellate court as civil, rather than criminal, in nature. Plaintiff has 

not alleged facts to support that his current civil commitment has been rendered punitive 

by the alleged failure to provide individualized treatment. Nor does Plaintiff allege that 

he has been denied care, supervision or treatment. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a 

claim for violation of double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment and that claim will be 

dismissed. 

D. Failure to Provide Treatment

 Plaintiff otherwise asserts that his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal 

protection rights have been violated by the denial of individualized treatment and that his 

civil commitment violates the Eighth Amendment. 

/ / / 

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 10 of 27
- 11 - 

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 

1. Due Process

 Persons civilly committed as SVPs have a due process right to some treatment, but 

what that treatment entails must be decided by mental health professionals. Lane v. 

Williams, 689 F.3d 879, 882 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 

319-22 (1982), and Allison v. Snyder, 332 F.3d 1076, 1081 (7th Cir. 2003)); Deavers v. 

Santiago, 243 Fed. Appx. 719, 722 (3d Cir. 2007); see Turay v. Selling, 108 F. Supp.2d 

1148, 1151 (W.D. Wash. 2000) (citing Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 319-22 (1982)); cf. 

Strutten v. Meade, 668 F.3d 549, 557 (8th Cir. 2012) (SVP did not have a fundamental 

due process right to sex offender treatment). However, the state “enjoy[s] wide latitude 

in developing treatment regimens” for sexual offenders. Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 368 n.4. 

“Liability [on a claim for constitutional deprivation] may be imposed only when the 

decision by the professional is such a substantial departure from accepted professional 

judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did 

not base the decision on such a judgment.” Youngsberg, 457 U.S. at 323; Lane, 689 F.3d 

at 882; Deavers, 243 Fed. Appx. at 722. But, as stated in Turay, “[t]he Hendricks Court 

rejected a facial challenge to a Kansas statute modeled on Washington’s, noting that by 

committing sex offenders ‘to an institution expressly designed to provide psychiatric care 

and treatment’ the state ‘has doubtless satisfied its obligation to provide available 

treatment.” 108 F.Supp.2d at 1151 (quoting Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 368 n.4). 

 Plaintiff is currently confined in a mental health facility, ACPTC. While Plaintiff 

alleges that he has been denied individualized treatment, he does not allege that he has 

been denied care, supervision, or treatment generally. Plaintiff also does not allege that 

he is entitled to individualized treatment under state law such that the failure of the state 

to provide individualized treatment violates his federal due process rights. Finally, as 

discussed above, Plaintiff fails to connect any failure to provide individualized treatment 

to any properly named Defendant. For all of these reasons, Plaintiff fails to state a claim 

for violation of due process and that claim will be dismissed. 

/ / / 

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 11 of 27
- 12 - 

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 

2. Equal Protection

 Plaintiff also asserts that the failure to provide individualized treatment violates 

equal protection. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides 

that a state may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the 

laws,” which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated 

alike. U.S. Const., amend. XIV; see City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 

U.S. 432, 439 (1985). A state practice that interferes with a fundamental right or that 

discriminates against a suspect class of individuals is subject to strict scrutiny. 

Massachusetts Bd. of Ret. v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 312 (1976); City of Cleburne, 473 

U.S. at 441. Absent allegations that he is a member of a suspect class, or that a 

fundamental right has been violated, a plaintiff must allege facts to support that he has 

been intentionally treated differently from others who are similarly situated without a 

reasonable basis therefor. See Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 

(2000). Conclusory allegations do not suffice. See Village of Arlington Heights v. 

Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977). 

 Plaintiff does not allege that he is a member of a protected class or the violation of 

a fundamental right; convicted sex offenders do not constitute a suspect class. See e.g., 

United States v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999, 1009 (9th Cir. 2012). Nor does Plaintiff 

allege that he has been treated differently than similarly situated persons, absent a 

reasonable basis therefor. Rather, Plaintiff only makes vague and conclusory allegations. 

As discussed above, that is not sufficient to state an equal protection claim. Further, as 

discussed above, Plaintiff fails to allege facts to connect any asserted violation to any 

properly named Defendant. For these reasons, Plaintiff fails to state an equal protection 

claim. Accordingly, that claim will be dismissed. 

3. Eighth Amendment 

Plaintiff also asserts that his civil commitment absent individualized treatment 

violates his Eighth Amendment rights. Not every claim by a prisoner relating to 

inadequate medical (or mental health) treatment states a violation of the Eighth or 

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 12 of 27
- 13 - 

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 

Fourteenth Amendment. To state a § 1983 medical claim, a plaintiff must show that the 

defendants acted with “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Jett v. Penner, 

439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 

(1976)). A plaintiff must show (1) a “serious medical need” by demonstrating that failure 

to treat the condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain and (2) the defendant’s response was deliberately indifferent. 

Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quotations omitted). 

 “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 

1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must 

both know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health; “the official must both be 

aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious 

harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 

837 (1994). Deliberate indifference in the medical context may be shown by a 

purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and 

harm caused by the indifference. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. Deliberate indifference may 

also be shown when a prison official intentionally denies, delays, or interferes with 

medical treatment or by the way prison doctors respond to the prisoner’s medical needs. 

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05; Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. 

 Deliberate indifference is a higher standard than negligence or lack of ordinary 

due care for the prisoner’s safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835. “Neither negligence nor 

gross negligence will constitute deliberate indifference.” Clement v. California Dep’t of 

Corr., 220 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1105 (N.D. Cal. 2002); see also Broughton v. Cutter Labs., 

622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (mere claims of “indifference,” “negligence,” or 

“medical malpractice” do not support a claim under § 1983). “A difference of opinion 

does not amount to deliberate indifference to [a plaintiff’s] serious medical needs.” 

Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). A mere delay in medical care, 

without more, is insufficient to state a claim against prison officials for deliberate 

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

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 13 of 27
- 14 - 

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 

(9th Cir. 1985). The indifference must be substantial. The action must rise to a level of 

“unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105. 

 Plaintiff fails to allege facts to support that he has a serious medical need, 

including the symptoms and duration of such medical need. Plaintiff also has not alleged 

facts to support that any properly-named Defendant, or anyone else, knew or should have 

known of such need but nevertheless failed to provide or obtain treatment for that need. 

Rather, Plaintiff appears merely to disagree with the treatment provided. That absent 

more, does not support that anyone acted with deliberate indifference to a serious medical 

need. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. 

E. First Amendment

 In Claim IV, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants knowingly or willingly denied him 

access to the “facilities grievance process” as retaliation for exercising constitutionally 

protected rights. A viable claim of First Amendment retaliation contains five basic 

elements: (1) an assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate 

(2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the 

inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights (or that the inmate suffered more than 

minimal harm) and (5) did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. Rhodes 

v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 

265, 267 (9th Cir. 1997) (retaliation claims requires a showing (1) that an official acted in 

retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right, and (2) that the action 

advanced no legitimate institutional interest). The plaintiff has the burden of 

demonstrating that his exercise of his First Amendment rights was a substantial or 

motivating factor behind the defendants’ conduct. Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of 

Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977); Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 

1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989). 

 Plaintiff fails to describe the facility’s grievance process or to allege when, where, 

how, and by whom he was denied access to the facility’s grievance process. Plaintiff also 

fails to allege facts to support that any act by a Defendant was taken in retaliation for the 

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 14 of 27
- 15 - 

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 

exercise of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. He fails to allege when, where, and how he 

engaged in constitutionally protected conduct or facts to support when, where, how, and 

by whom he was subject to retaliation. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim and 

these allegations will be dismissed. 

IV. State Law Claims 

Plaintiff also alleges violations of the Arizona Constitution and other state law. 

Where a federal court has original jurisdiction over an action, such as a case asserting 

constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the doctrine of pendent 

jurisdiction allows a federal court to exercise “pendent” or “supplemental” jurisdiction 

over closely related state law claims. Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 978 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)). As discussed herein, Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss will be granted based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a federal claim against any 

Defendant under § 1983. Because Plaintiff fails to state a federal claim in his Complaint, 

the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over his state law claims in the Complaint and 

will dismiss those claims without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 

V. Leave to Amend 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss the 

Complaint for failure to state a claim. However, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to 

amend because it is not clear that Plaintiff could not amend to state a claim. See Lacey v. 

Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc) (citing Doe v. United 

States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir.1995)). Within 30 days, Plaintiff may file a first 

amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail 

Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff 

fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the amended complaint and 

dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 

 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First 

Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 

entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 15 of 27
- 16 - 

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 

Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 

 A first amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 

F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat an original 

complaint as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised 

in the original complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without 

prejudice is waived if it is not alleged in a first amended complaint. Lacey, 693 F.3d at 

928. 

VI. Warnings

A. 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. 

B. Copies

 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. 

C. 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, 963 

F.2d at 1260-61 (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any 

order of the Court). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim is 

granted and the Complaint is dismissed. (Doc. 1, 10.) 

(2) Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended 

complaint in compliance with this Order. 

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 16 of 27
- 17 - 

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 

 (3) If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of 

Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with 

prejudice. 

(4) The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff a court-approved form for filing a 

civil rights complaint by a prisoner. 

(5) Plaintiff’s motions for status are granted to the extent set forth herein. 

(Doc. 5, 14.) 

DATED this 3rd day of September, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 17 of 27
Revised 3/9/07 1

Instructions for a Prisoner Filing a Civil Rights Complaint 

in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

1. Who May Use This Form. The civil rights complaint form is designed to help incarcerated

persons prepare a complaint seeking relief for a violation of their federal civil rights. These

complaints typically concern, but are not limited to, conditions of confinement. This form

should not be used to challenge your conviction or sentence. If you want to challenge a state

conviction or sentence, you should file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas

corpus by a person in state custody. If you want to challenge a federal conviction or sentence,

you should file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate sentence in the federal court that

entered the judgment. 

2. The Form. Local Rule of Civil Procedure (LRCiv) 3.4(a) provides that complaints by

incarcerated persons must be filed on the court-approved form. The form must be typed or

neatly handwritten. The form must be completely filled in to the extent applicable. All

questions must be answered clearly and concisely in the appropriate space on the form. If

needed, you may attach additional pages, but no more than fifteen additional pages, of standard

letter-sized paper. You must identify which part of the complaint is being continued and

number all pages. If you do not fill out the form properly, you will be asked to submit additional

or corrected information, which may delay the processing of your action. You do not need to

cite law. 

3. Your Signature. You must tell the truth and sign the form. If you make a false statement of

a material fact, you may be prosecuted for perjury.

4. The Filing Fee. The filing fee for this action is $350.00. If you are unable to immediately

pay the filing fee, you may request leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Please review the

“Information for Prisoners Seeking Leave to Proceed with a (Non-Habeas) Civil Action in

Federal Court In Forma Pauperis Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915” for additional instructions.

5. Original and Judge’s Copy. You must send an original plus one copy of your complaint and

of any other documents submitted to the Court. You must send one additional copy to the Court

if you wish to have a file-stamped copy of the document returned to you. All copies must be

identical to the original. Copies may be legibly handwritten.

6. Where to File. You should file your complaint in the division where you were confined

when your rights were allegedly violated. See LRCiv 5.1(a) and 77.1(a). If you were confined

in Maricopa, Pinal, Yuma, La Paz, or Gila County, file in the Phoenix Division. If you were

confined in Apache, Navajo, Coconino, Mohave, or Yavapai County, file in the Prescott

Division. If you were confined in Pima, Cochise, Santa Cruz, Graham, or Greenlee County, file

in the Tucson Division. Mail the original and one copy of the complaint with the $350 filing

fee or the application to proceed in forma pauperis to:

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 18 of 27
2

Phoenix & Prescott Divisions: OR Tucson Division:

U.S. District Court Clerk U.S. District Court Clerk

U.S. Courthouse, Suite 130 U.S. Courthouse, Suite 1500

401 West Washington Street, SPC 10 405 West Congress Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2119 Tucson, Arizona 85701-5010

7. Change of Address. You must immediately notify the Court and the defendants in writing

of any change in your mailing address. Failure to notify the Court of any change in your

mailing address may result in the dismissal of your case.

8. Certificate of Service. You must furnish the defendants with a copy of any document you

submit to the Court (except the initial complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis).

Each original document (except the initial complaint and application to proceed in forma

pauperis) must include a certificate of service on the last page of the document stating the date

a copy of the document was mailed to the defendants and the address to which it was mailed.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a), (d). Any document received by the Court that does not include a

certificate of service may be stricken. A certificate of service should be in the following form:

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed

this (month, day, year) to:

Name: 

Address: 

 Attorney for Defendant(s)

 

(Signature)

9. Amended Complaint. If you need to change any of the information in the initial complaint,

you must file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must be written on the courtapproved civil rights complaint form. You may file one amended complaint without leave

(permission) of Court before any defendant has answered your original complaint. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a). After any defendant has filed an answer, you must file a motion for leave to

amend and lodge (submit) a proposed amended complaint. LRCiv 15.1. In addition, an

amended complaint may not incorporate by reference any part of your prior complaint. LRCiv

15.1(a)(2). Any allegations or defendants not included in the amended complaint are

considered dismissed. All amended complaints are subject to screening under the Prison

Litigation Reform Act; screening your amendment will take additional processing time.

10. Exhibits. You should not submit exhibits with the complaint or amended complaint.

Instead, the relevant information should be paraphrased. You should keep the exhibits to use

to support or oppose a motion to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment, or at trial.

11. Letters and Motions. It is generally inappropriate to write a letter to any judge or the staff

of any judge. The only appropriate way to communicate with the Court is by filing a written

pleading or motion.

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 19 of 27
3

12. Completing the Civil Rights Complaint Form.

HEADING:

1. Your Name. Print your name, prison or inmate number, and institutional mailing

address on the lines provided.

2. Defendants. If there are four or fewer defendants, print the name of each. If you

name more than four defendants, print the name of the first defendant on the first line,

write the words “and others” on the second line, and attach an additional page listing the

names of all of the defendants. Insert the additional page after page 1 and number it “1-

A” at the bottom.

3. Jury Demand. If you want a jury trial, you must write “JURY TRIAL DEMANDED”

in the space below “CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT BY A PRISONER.” Failure to do

so may result in the loss of the right to a jury trial. A jury trial is not available if you are

seeking only injunctive relief.

Part A. JURISDICTION:

1. Nature of Suit. Mark whether you are filing the complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 for state, county, or city defendants; “Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics

Agents” for federal defendants; or “other.” If you mark “other,” identify the source of

that authority. 

2. Location. Identify the institution and city where the alleged violation of your rights

occurred. 

3. Defendants. Print all of the requested information about each of the defendants in the

spaces provided. If you are naming more than four defendants, you must provide the

necessary information about each additional defendant on separate pages labeled “2-A,”

“2-B,” etc., at the bottom. Insert the additional page(s) immediately behind page 2.

Part B. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS:

You must identify any other lawsuit you have filed in either state or federal court while

you were a prisoner. Print all of the requested information about each lawsuit in the spaces

provided. If you have filed more than three lawsuits, you must provide the necessary

information about each additional lawsuit on a separate page. Label the page(s) as “2-A,” “2-

B,” etc., at the bottom of the page and insert the additional page(s) immediately behind page 2.

Part C. CAUSE OF ACTION:

You must identify what rights each defendant violated. The form provides space to

allege three separate counts (one violation per count). If you are alleging more than three

counts, you must provide the necessary information about each additional count on a separate

page. Number the additional pages “5-A,” “5-B,” etc., and insert them immediately behind page

5. Remember that you are limited to a total of fifteen additional pages.

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 20 of 27
4

1. Counts. You must identify which civil right was violated. You may allege the

violation of only one civil right per count.

2. Issue Involved. Check the box that most closely identifies the issue involved in your

claim. You may check only one box per count. If you check the box marked “Other,”

you must identify the specific issue involved.

3. Supporting Facts. After you have identified which civil right was violated, you must

state the supporting facts. Be as specific as possible. You must state what each

individual defendant did to violate your rights. If there is more than one defendant, you

must identify which defendant did what act. You also should state the date(s) on which

the act(s) occurred, if possible.

4. Injury. State precisely how you were injured by the alleged violation of your rights.

5. Administrative Remedies. You must exhaust any available administrative remedies

before you file a civil rights complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Consequently, you

should disclose whether you have exhausted the inmate grievance procedures or

administrative appeals for each count in your complaint. If the grievance procedures

were not available for any of your counts, fully explain why on the lines provided.

Part D. REQUEST FOR RELIEF:

Print the relief you are seeking in the space provided. 

SIGNATURE:

You must sign your name and print the date you signed the complaint. Failure to sign

the complaint will delay the processing of your action. Unless you are an attorney, you may not

bring an action on behalf of anyone but yourself.

FINAL NOTE

You should follow these instructions carefully. Failure to do so may result in your

complaint being stricken or dismissed. All questions must be answered concisely in the proper

space on the form. If you need more space, you may attach no more than fifteen additional

pages. But the form must be completely filled in to the extent applicable. If you attach

additional pages, be sure to identify which section of the complaint is being continued and

number the pages.

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 21 of 27
Revised 3/9/07 1 550/555

Name and Prisoner/Booking Number

Place of Confinement

Mailing Address

City, State, Zip Code

(Failure to notify the Court of your change of address may result in dismissal of this action.) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

)

 , )

(Full Name of Plaintiff) Plaintiff, )

)

 vs. ) CASE NO. 

) (To be supplied by the Clerk)

(1) , )

(Full Name of Defendant) )

(2) , )

) CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

(3) ,) BY A PRISONER

)

(4) , ) G Original Complaint

Defendant(s). ) G First Amended Complaint

G Check if there are additional Defendants and attach page 1-A listing them. ) G Second Amended Complaint

A. JURISDICTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to:

G 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a); 42 U.S.C. § 1983

G 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

G Other: .

2. Institution/city where violation occurred: .

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 22 of 27
2

B. DEFENDANTS

1. Name of first Defendant: . The first Defendant is employed as:

at . (Position and Title) (Institution)

2. Name of second Defendant: . The second Defendant is employed as:

at . (Position and Title) (Institution)

3. Name of third Defendant: . The third Defendant is employed as:

at . (Position and Title) (Institution)

4. Name of fourth Defendant: . The fourth Defendant is employed as:

at . (Position and Title) (Institution)

If you name more than four Defendants, answer the questions listed above for each additional Defendant on a separate page.

C. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS

1. Have you filed any other lawsuits while you were a prisoner? G Yes G No

2. If yes, how many lawsuits have you filed? . Describe the previous lawsuits:

a. First prior lawsuit:

1. Parties: v. 

2. Court and case number: .

3. Result: (Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed? Is it still pending?)

.

b. Second prior lawsuit:

1. Parties: v. 

2. Court and case number: .

3. Result: (Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed? Is it still pending?)

.

c. Third prior lawsuit:

1. Parties: v. 

2. Court and case number: .

3. Result: (Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed? Is it still pending?)

.

If you filed more than three lawsuits, answer the questions listed above for each additional lawsuit on a separate page.

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 23 of 27
3

D. CAUSE OF ACTION

COUNT I

1. State the constitutional or other federal civil right that was violated: 

.

2. Count I. Identify the issue involved. Check only one. State additional issues in separate counts.

G Basic necessities G Mail G Access to the court G Medical care 

G Disciplinary proceedings G Property G Exercise of religion G Retaliation

G Excessive force by an officer G Threat to safety G Other: .

3. Supporting Facts. State as briefly as possible the FACTS supporting Count I. Describe exactly what

each Defendant did or did not do that violated your rights. State the facts clearly in your own words without

citing legal authority or arguments.

.

4. Injury. State how you were injured by the actions or inactions of the Defendant(s).

.

5. Administrative Remedies:

a. Are there any administrative remedies (grievance procedures or administrative appeals) available

at your institution? G Yes G No

b. Did you submit a request for administrative relief on Count I? G Yes G No

c. Did you appeal your request for relief on Count I to the highest level? G Yes G No

d. If you did not submit or appeal a request for administrative relief at any level, briefly explain why

you did not. 

.

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 24 of 27
4

COUNT II

1. State the constitutional or other federal civil right that was violated: 

.

2. Count II. Identify the issue involved. Check only one. State additional issues in separate counts.

G Basic necessities G Mail G Access to the court G Medical care 

G Disciplinary proceedings G Property G Exercise of religion G Retaliation

G Excessive force by an officer G Threat to safety G Other: .

3. Supporting Facts. State as briefly as possible the FACTS supporting Count II. Describe exactly what

each Defendant did or did not do that violated your rights. State the facts clearly in your own words without

citing legal authority or arguments.

.

4. Injury. State how you were injured by the actions or inactions of the Defendant(s).

.

5. Administrative Remedies.

a. Are there any administrative remedies (grievance procedures or administrative appeals) available

at your institution? G Yes G No

b. Did you submit a request for administrative relief on Count II? G Yes G No

c. Did you appeal your request for relief on Count II to the highest level? G Yes G No

d. If you did not submit or appeal a request for administrative relief at any level, briefly explain why

you did not. 

.

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 25 of 27
5

COUNT III

1. State the constitutional or other federal civil right that was violated: 

.

2. Count III. Identify the issue involved. Check only one. State additional issues in separate counts.

G Basic necessities G Mail G Access to the court G Medical care 

G Disciplinary proceedings G Property G Exercise of religion G Retaliation

G Excessive force by an officer G Threat to safety G Other: .

3. Supporting Facts. State as briefly as possible the FACTS supporting Count III. Describe exactly what

each Defendant did or did not do that violated your rights. State the facts clearly in your own words without

citing legal authority or arguments.

.

4. Injury. State how you were injured by the actions or inactions of the Defendant(s).

.

5. Administrative Remedies.

a. Are there any administrative remedies (grievance procedures or administrative appeals) available

at your institution? G Yes G No

b. Did you submit a request for administrative relief on Count III? G Yes G No

c. Did you appeal your request for relief on Count III to the highest level? G Yes G No

d. If you did not submit or appeal a request for administrative relief at any level, briefly explain why

you did not. 

.

If you assert more than three Counts, answer the questions listed above for each additional Count on a separate page.

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 26 of 27
6

E. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

State the relief you are seeking:

.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on 

DATE SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF

(Name and title of paralegal, legal assistant, or

other person who helped prepare this complaint)

(Signature of attorney, if any)

(Attorney’s address & telephone number)

ADDITIONAL PAGES

All questions must be answered concisely in the proper space on the form. If you need more space, you may

attach no more than fifteen additional pages. But the form must be completely filled in to the extent

applicable. If you attach additional pages, be sure to identify which section of the complaint is being continued

and number all pages.

Case 2:13-cv-01188-SMM--JFM Document 16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 27 of 27