Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00286/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00286-0/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Adam Narciso Garcia, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-286-PHX-RCB (DKD) 

 O R D E R 

Plaintiff Adam Narciso Garcia, who is confined in the Maricopa County Durango 

Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and 

an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the 

Complaint with leave to amend. 

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). 

The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $26.00. The remainder of the 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. 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 2:14-cv-00286-RCB--DKD Document 5 Filed 04/22/14 Page 1 of 10
- 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 

JDDL-K 

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 

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)). 

Case 2:14-cv-00286-RCB--DKD Document 5 Filed 04/22/14 Page 2 of 10
- 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 

JDDL-K 

 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). The 

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

advice “would undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. 

Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to 

decide whether the court was required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff’s 

Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may possibly be 

amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 

III. Complaint 

 In his three-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph 

Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office for alleged unconstitutional conditions 

of confinement at the Durango Jail. He seeks damages. 

 Plaintiff alleges the following in Count I: The “air conditioning is on and cold no 

matter what [the] temperature is,” and the temperature is never above 69 degrees. 

Someone “will not turn on heat” and “will not give extra blankets” or clothes. There is 

“improper ventilation air exchange,” “staff infections,” and “multiple people with cold[s] 

in pods.” Plaintiff is sick, “uncomfortable at all times,” suffers loss of sleep and “P.T.S.” 

 In Count II, Plaintiff alleges the following: “They say there are (2500) calories 

served per day that is from 2005.” Plaintiff requested measurement but received no 

response. “Most of the food is lost during transportation from building to building” and it 

is not edible. There are two meals a day, no drink at dinner, and the “mysterious meat [] 

is very greasy.” Plaintiff suffers from “malnutrition, no energy, loss of muscle mass, sick 

or getting sick,” weakness, headaches, “loss of proper vitamins and minerals,” and he is 

“not sure on long term effect.” 

 In Count III, Plaintiff alleges the following: “all county jails across the U.S. have 

done away with 3 & 4 men cells”; “no room between bunks to move”; “fire hazard”; “64 

men to two toilets, with no disinfectants”; and “64 men to two showers with no 

Case 2:14-cv-00286-RCB--DKD Document 5 Filed 04/22/14 Page 3 of 10
- 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 

JDDL-K 

disinfectants.” Someone has to “eat on bunk” and there are “not enough tables [and] 

chairs to eat.” There are “over 40 men in holding tank when going to court” and “chains 

on our feet when we[’]re not guilty for an offense.” Plaintiff has been injured by “no 

sleep, unable to get out easily to leave room, [and] untold of amount of illnesses.” He 

says “total effect will be unknown.” 

IV. Failure to State a Claim

 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 

(2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities 

and (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th 

Cir. 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 

1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). 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. Arpaio 

 Plaintiff sues Maricopa County Sheriff Arpaio. While Arpaio may be sued for 

constitutional violations, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against him. “A plaintiff must 

allege facts, not simply conclusions, that 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. 2002) (citation omitted). 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. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Taylor v. 

List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). A supervisor in his 

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

Case 2:14-cv-00286-RCB--DKD Document 5 Filed 04/22/14 Page 4 of 10
- 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 

JDDL-K 

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 any facts regarding Arpaio in his Complaint. Plaintiff does 

not allege that Arpaio directly violated his constitutional rights. Moreover, Plaintiff does 

not allege facts to support that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated as a result of 

a policy or custom promulgated or endorsed by Arpaio. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to 

state a claim against Defendant Arpaio and he will be dismissed. 

 B. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office 

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not a proper defendant. In Arizona, the 

responsibility of operating jails and caring for prisoners is placed by law upon the sheriff. 

See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 11-441(A)(5); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 31-101. A sheriff’s 

office is simply an administrative creation of the county sheriff to allow him to carry out 

his statutory duties and is not a “person” amenable to suit pursuant to § 1983. 

Accordingly, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office will be dismissed as a Defendant. 

C. Conditions of Confinement 

 Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against a properly named Defendant, 

his Complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. If Plaintiff files an amended 

Complaint, he should be aware that a pretrial detainee’s claim for unconstitutional 

conditions of confinement arises from the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause 

rather than from the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual 

punishment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979). Nevertheless, the same 

standards are applied, requiring proof that the defendant acted with deliberate 

indifference. See Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 

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

due care for the prisoner’s safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994). To 

state a claim of deliberate indifference, plaintiffs must meet a two-part test. First, the 

alleged constitutional deprivation must be, objectively, “sufficiently serious”; the 

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

Case 2:14-cv-00286-RCB--DKD Document 5 Filed 04/22/14 Page 5 of 10
- 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 

JDDL-K 

life’s necessities.” Id. at 834 (citations omitted). Second, 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. (citations omitted). In defining “deliberate indifference” in 

this context, the Supreme Court has imposed a subjective test: “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.” Id. at 837 (emphasis added). 

 To state a claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement, a plaintiff must 

allege that a defendant’s acts or omissions have deprived the inmate of “the minimal 

civilized measure of life’s necessities” and that the defendant acted with deliberate 

indifference to an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 

1087 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834); see Estate of Ford v. Ramirez–

Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2002). Whether conditions of confinement rise 

to the level of a constitutional violation may depend, in part, on the duration of an 

inmate’s exposure to those conditions. Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1089, 1091 (9th 

Cir. 1996) (citing Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686-87 (1978)). “The circumstances, 

nature, and duration of a deprivation of [ ] necessities must be considered in determining 

whether a constitutional violation has occurred.” Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 

1042 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000)). 

 Allegations of overcrowding, without more, do not state a claim under the Eighth 

and Fourteenth Amendments. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1248-49 (9th Cir. 

1982). A plaintiff may, however, state a cognizable claim where he or she alleges that 

overcrowding results in some unconstitutional condition. See, e.g., Akao v. Shimoda, 832 

F.2d 119, 120 (9th Cir. 1987) (reversing district court’s dismissal of claim that 

overcrowding caused increased stress, tension and communicable disease among inmate 

population); see also Toussaint v. Yockey, 722 F.2d 1490, 1492 (9th Cir. 1984) (affirming 

that an Eighth Amendment violation may occur as a result of overcrowded prison 

conditions causing increased violence, tension and psychiatric problems). 

Case 2:14-cv-00286-RCB--DKD Document 5 Filed 04/22/14 Page 6 of 10
- 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 

JDDL-K 

 With respect to meals, “[t]he Eighth [and Fourteenth] Amendment[s] require[] 

only that prisoners receive food that is adequate to maintain health; it need not be tasty or 

aesthetically pleasing.” LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation 

omitted); see Frost, 152 F.3d at 1128 (applying Eighth Amendment standard to a pretrial 

detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment claims regarding his conditions of confinement). 

“The fact that the food occasionally contains foreign objects or sometimes is served cold, 

while unpleasant, does not amount to a constitutional deprivation.” LeMaire, 12 F.3d at 

1456 (citations omitted). An inmate may, however, state a claim where he alleges that he 

is served meals with insufficient calories for long periods of time. Id. 

Plaintiff fails to allege any specific facts such as when he was held in the alleged 

unconstitutional conditions of confinement or the duration of his confinement in such 

conditions. In addition, Plaintiff fails to allege that any individual was aware of the 

alleged unconditional conditions but failed to act. That is, Plaintiff fails to allege facts to 

support that Arpaio or anyone else acted with deliberate indifference to the alleged 

conditions. Moreover, in Count I, Plaintiff fails to allege when, or for how long, he was 

cold, if he requested heat, extra blankets or clothes, and, if so, to whom he directed those 

requests. In Count II, Plaintiff fails to allege what food he was served, or when or how 

often he was served food that was “damaged” or inedible. In Count III, Plaintiff fails to 

allege how many men were in his cell, and for how long, the size of his cell, or other facts 

to support a claim of overcrowding. For these reasons, Plaintiff fails to state a claim of 

unconstitutional conditions of confinement. 

V. Leave to Amend 

 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit 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. 

Case 2:14-cv-00286-RCB--DKD Document 5 Filed 04/22/14 Page 7 of 10
- 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 

JDDL-K 

 If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements 

telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name 

of the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to 

do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of 

Plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of 

that Defendant’s conduct. See Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371-72, 377. 

 Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he names as a Defendant. If 

Plaintiff fails to affirmatively link the conduct of each named Defendant with the specific 

injury suffered by Plaintiff, the allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim. Conclusory allegations that a Defendant or group of 

Defendants has violated a constitutional right are not acceptable and will be 

dismissed. 

 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 

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 v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 

VI. 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 

Case 2:14-cv-00286-RCB--DKD Document 5 Filed 04/22/14 Page 8 of 10
- 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 

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

 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 “Strike”

 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 may count as a “strike” under the “3-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Under the 3-strikes provision, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil 

judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more 

prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal 

in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, 

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

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

E. 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) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted. 

Case 2:14-cv-00286-RCB--DKD Document 5 Filed 04/22/14 Page 9 of 10
- 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 

JDDL-K 

 (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 $26.00. 

(3) The Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff 

has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended complaint in 

compliance with this Order. 

 (4) 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 that states that the dismissal may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

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

civil rights complaint by a prisoner. 

DATED this 17th day of April, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-00286-RCB--DKD Document 5 Filed 04/22/14 Page 10 of 10