Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02031/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02031-0/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

TERMPSREF 28

WO KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Patrick Kalei Koa-Hiro, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Jody Bradley, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2031-PHX-RCB (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Patrick Kalei Koa-Hiro, who is confined in the Corrections Corporation of

America-Saguaro Correctional Facility (“CCA-SCC”), filed a pro se civil rights Complaint

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

30, 2009, the Court dismissed the Application to Proceed with leave to re-file. On November

16, 2009, Plaintiff filed a new Application to Proceed (Doc. #5) and a First Amended

Complaint (Doc. #6). The Court will order Defendants Bradley, Griego, Garcia, Kimoto, and

Jinbo to answer Counts I and III of the Amended Complaint and will dismiss the remaining

claim and Defendant without prejudice. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

Plaintiff’s new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The statutory

Case 2:09-cv-02031-RCB Document 7 Filed 12/17/09 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

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) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does not

demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (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 1950. 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 1951.

III. Amended Complaint

Plaintiff sues Assistant Warden Jody Bradley, Assistant Warden Benjamin Griego,

Case 2:09-cv-02031-RCB Document 7 Filed 12/17/09 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

Unit Team Manager Frank Garcia, Grievance Coordinator Juan Valenzuela, Hawaii

Department of Public Safety Administrator Shari Kimoto, and Contract Monitor Scott Jinbo.

Plaintiff raises three grounds for relief in the Amended Complaint:

(1) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights were violated when Defendants Bradley,

Griego, and Garcia assigned Plaintiff to a cell with a rival gang member, even

though they knew Plaintiff and the other inmate were rival gang members and

that Plaintiff was in danger, and Plaintiff was assaulted;

(2) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights were violated when Defendants Bradley,

Griego, Garcia, and Valenzuela retaliated against Plaintiff; and 

(3) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights were violated when Defendants Kimoto

and Jinbo refused to order Plaintiff’s transfer to another facility despite being

aware that Plaintiff’s safety is in danger in the CCA-SCC facility.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and money damages.

IV. Failure to State a Claim

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) was not

narrowly tailored to advance a legitimate correctional goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d

559, 567-58 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 267 (9th Cir. 1997)

(retaliation claims requires an inmate must show (1) that the prison official acted in

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

“advanced no legitimate penological interest”).

In Count II, Plaintiff states that Defendants were aware that Plaintiff intended to

pursue legal action. Plaintiff also alleges that his ability to file grievances was hindered and

that he was denied legal and personal phone calls, and has been left in administrative

segregation. However, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants acted adversely against him

because of Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected conduct. Further, Plaintiff has failed to

Case 2:09-cv-02031-RCB Document 7 Filed 12/17/09 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

allege that Defendants’ actions were not for the purpose of advancing a legitimate

penological interest. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations in Count II fail to state a claim and

the Court will therefore dismiss Count II.

V. Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required

Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s claims in Counts I and III adequately state Eighth

Amendment failure to protect claims against Defendants Bradley, Griego, Garcia, Kimoto,

and Jinbo. The Court will require these Defendants to answer Counts I and III.

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 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 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

Case 2:09-cv-02031-RCB Document 7 Filed 12/17/09 Page 4 of 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 - 5 -

comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s November 16, 2009 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Doc. #5) is granted. 

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

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

(3) Count II of the Amended Complaint and Defendant Valenzuela are dismissed

without prejudice.

(4) Defendants Bradley, Griego, Garcia, Kimoto, and Jinbo must answer Counts

I and III of the Amended Complaint. 

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

Complaint (Doc. #6), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for

Defendants Bradley, Griego, Garcia, Kimoto, and Jinbo.

(6) Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court

within 20 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 Amended 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 Amended

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 requests for waivers that were returned as undeliverable and

waivers of service of the summons. If a waiver of service of summons is not returned by a

Case 2:09-cv-02031-RCB Document 7 Filed 12/17/09 Page 5 of 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 - 6 -

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, Amended 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, Amended Complaint, or this Order and for preparing new process

receipt and return forms (USM-285), if required. Costs of service will be taxed against

the personally served Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

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

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

Plaintiff.

(11) Defendant must answer the Amended 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 Edward C. Voss pursuant to Rules

. . . 

Case 2:09-cv-02031-RCB Document 7 Filed 12/17/09 Page 6 of 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 - 7 -

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 16th day of December, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-02031-RCB Document 7 Filed 12/17/09 Page 7 of 7