Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00571/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00571-1/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

LMH

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Terri L. Sanchez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0571-PHX-DGC (HCE)

ORDER

This is a civil rights action filed by a county jail inmate. The Court dismissed

Plaintiff’s original Complaint with leave to amend because (1) she had improperly attempted

to enforce the Amended Judgment in Hart v. Hill, No. CIV 77-0479-PHX-EHC (MS)

(D. Ariz.) in this action, and (2) she failed to set forth allegations showing how Sheriff

Arpaio acted to violate her constitutional rights. See Dkt. #3. Plaintiff has now filed her

First Amended Complaint. See Dkt. #5. She has not, however, corrected any of the

deficiencies. Instead, her First Amended Complaint is virtually identical to her original

Complaint and thus contains the same errors regarding enforcement of Hart v. Hill and the

lack of allegations regarding the conduct of Sheriff Arpaio. 

There is no explanation why Plaintiff failed to correct the noted deficiencies. The

Court’s discretion to deny or grant leave to amend is particularly broad where Plaintiff has

previously been permitted to amend his complaint. See Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v.

United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996). The failure to cure deficiencies by previous

amendments is one of the factors to be considered in deciding whether justice requires

Case 2:06-cv-00571-DGC--HCE Document 6 Filed 05/22/06 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

granting leave to amend. Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir.

1989). Granting leave to amend is unnecessary if the defect cannot be cured. See Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Because Plaintiff, without any

explanation, has ignored the Court’s earlier Order dismissing her original Complaint with

leave to amend, the Court finds that allowing further opportunities for amendment would be

futile. The Court will therefore dismiss the First Amended Complaint and this action for

failure to state a claim.

IT IS ORDERED that the First Amended Complaint (dkt. #5) and this action are

dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment of dismissal

and note that the dismissal falls under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00571-DGC--HCE Document 6 Filed 05/22/06 Page 2 of 2