Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00043/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00043-2/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Tracy Douglas Hoops, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-00043-PHX-RCB 

 O R D E R 

On January 9, 2014, Plaintiff Tracy Douglas Hoops, who is confined in the 

Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a March 7, 2014 

Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint 

because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an 

amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 

 On March 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7). The 

Court will dismiss Defendant Arpaio and grant Plaintiff 60 days in which to file a notice 

of substitution substituting the actual names of John Doe and the Jail Commander. 

I. 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 

Case 2:14-cv-00043-JJT--BSB Document 8 Filed 05/05/14 Page 1 of 7
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JDDL 

has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While Rule 8 does not demand 

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

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

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

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

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

“when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citation omitted). 

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

common sense.” Id. at 679 (citation omitted). Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific 

factual allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess 

whether there are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 

 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, 

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)). 

II. First Amended Complaint 

 In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges two counts against Joseph M. 

Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County; John Doe, second shift floor officer at the Lower 

Buckeye Jail; and the “Jail Commander” at the Lower Buckeye Jail. 

. . . . 

Case 2:14-cv-00043-JJT--BSB Document 8 Filed 05/05/14 Page 2 of 7
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JDDL 

 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were 

violated as follows: On June 7, 2013 and August 6, 2013, John Doe delivered Plaintiff’s 

mail to another inmate. The letters were privileged letters sent through Inmate Legal 

Services (“ILS”) to Plaintiff’s attorney, which ILS photocopied and returned to Plaintiff 

through the inmate jail system. John Doe had been briefed in the past about checking 

identification when handing out mail to avoid “this situation.” The contents of the letters 

contained information about Plaintiff’s interviews with law enforcement, details of cases 

in which Plaintiff is testifying, and information about inmates that were attempting to 

hinder prosecution. John Doe was briefed by Sergeant Berntson about the risks to inmate 

safety from delivering legal mail to the wrong inmate, but was deliberately indifferent to 

that risk by failing to ensure the mail was delivered to the correct inmate. Plaintiff’s mail 

was sent to the “Westside City Crip members” and “Hindu Mafia Family members” and, 

as a result, Plaintiff was threatened on two occasions in the jail and Plaintiff has people 

who want to kill him upon his release. 

 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were 

violated as follows: On March 5, 2014, the Jail Commander issued an order allowing 

maximum security inmates to shave during their hour out, which allows six inmates with 

razors that could be used as weapons into the population twelve times per day in a 

maximum security setting. The past policy was to lock all maximum security inmates in 

their cells and give razors to each inmate to protect staff and inmates from violent 

assaults. The new policy creates a substantial risk of violence and an immediate threat to 

the safety of inmates and detention staff. Detention staff have voiced concerns about this 

policy. Defendant Arpaio is the Sheriff and chief policymaker within all MCSO Jails and 

publicly boasts when inmates are killed. Recent inmate and staff assaults, including a 

recent murder in the pod next to Plaintiff, show there is a dangerous environment. 

 Plaintiff solely seeks injunctive relief. 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 2:14-cv-00043-JJT--BSB Document 8 Filed 05/05/14 Page 3 of 7
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JDDL 

III. Failure to State a Claim 

 To prevail in a 42 U.S.C. § 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). 

 Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant Arpaio in his Complaint. “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 the City 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 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. 

 The only fact in Plaintiff’s Complaint about Defendant Arpaio is that he “is the 

Sheriff and chief policymaker within all MCSO Jails and publicly boasts when inmates 

are killed.” Plaintiff does not link Defendant Arpaio’s policymaking authority to any 

allegations in his Complaint. Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege facts to support that 

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated as a result of a specific policy or custom 

promulgated or endorsed by Arpaio. Finally, Plaintiff does not allege that Arpaio directly 

Case 2:14-cv-00043-JJT--BSB Document 8 Filed 05/05/14 Page 4 of 7
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JDDL 

violated his constitutional rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against 

Arpaio and he will be dismissed. 

IV. Service Cannot Be Effected at this Time 

 Liberally construed, Plaintiff states a Fourteenth Amendment claim based on 

threat to safety against Defendant Doe in Count One and Defendant “Jail Commander” in 

Count Two. However, the Court cannot direct that service be made on John Doe and 

“Jail Commander” at this time. Generally, the use of fictitious names to identify 

defendants is not favored, and as a practical matter, it is in most instances impossible for 

the United States Marshal to serve a summons and complaint upon a fictitiously 

identified defendant. 

 The Court will allow Plaintiff 60 days in which to identify the Defendants by 

name, through subpoena or otherwise, and to substitute those names for John Doe and 

Jail Commander by filing a “notice of substitution.” See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 

F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 

1980)) (where identity of alleged defendants will not be known prior to filing of 

complaint, plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the 

unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or 

that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds). Failure to timely file a notice 

of substitution will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to 

prosecute. 

V. 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. 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 2:14-cv-00043-JJT--BSB Document 8 Filed 05/05/14 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JDDL 

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 Dismissal

 If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including 

these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action 

for failure to comply with any order of the Court). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) Defendant Arpaio is dismissed. 

 (2) Plaintiff is granted 60 days from the filing date of this Order in which to 

discover by subpoena, or otherwise, the identities of Defendant John Doe and Defendant 

Jail Commander and to file a “notice of substitution” providing the Defendants’ names in 

place of John Doe and Jail Commander. 

 (3) The Clerk of Court must issue two subpoenas in blank and send them to 

Plaintiff. 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 2:14-cv-00043-JJT--BSB Document 8 Filed 05/05/14 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JDDL 

 (4) The Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of dismissal for failure to 

prosecute without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff, if Plaintiff fails to file 

a “notice of substitution” of parties within 60 days from the filing date of this Order. 

 DATED this 2nd day of May, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-00043-JJT--BSB Document 8 Filed 05/05/14 Page 7 of 7