Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02657/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02657-0/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

TERMPSREF

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Raymond Ambrose, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

The State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2657-PHX-SMM (DKD)

ORDER

On November 6, 2006, Plaintiff Raymond Ambrose, Jr., who is confined in the

Arizona State Prison Complex in Tucson, Arizona, lodged a pro se civil rights Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. #2) based on events that took place at the Arizona State

Prison Complex in Buckeye, Arizona. He has filed a Motion to Exceed Number of Pages

(Doc. #1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #4). The Court, in its

discretion, will grant the Motion to Exceed, grant the Application to Proceed, and order the

Clerk to file the lodged Complaint. The Court will order Defendants State of Arizona,

Ramos, Romweber, Mummert, Berger, Holmes, Bevins, Misty Taylor, Lynch, and Rivers to

answer Counts 1 through 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, and 34 of the Complaint. The Court will

dismiss the remaining Defendants and claims without prejudice. 

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).

Case 2:06-cv-02657-SMM-DKD Document 7 Filed 01/19/07 Page 1 of 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

Hereinafter, Defendant C.O. II Misty Taylor will be referred to as “Defendant Misty

Taylor” and Defendant C.O. III Taylor will be referred to as “Defendant C.O. III Taylor.”

TERMPSREF - 2 -

The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $6.53. The remainder of the 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). 

III. Complaint

In his 37-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Defendants State of Arizona; Arizona

Department of Corrections (ADOC) Director Dora B. Schriro; Deputy Warden D.W. Ramos;

Deputy Warden Mary J. Romweber; Captain Eugene G. Mummert; Lieutenant Berger;

Sergeant Holmes; Lieutenant Bevins; Corrections Officer (C.O.) II Misty Taylor; C.O. II

Lynch; Criminal Investigator D.L. Rivers; C.O. III Jimmy R. Houx; C.O. III Taylor,1

 and

C.O. IV Mejia.

In Count 1, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Misty Taylor violated the Eighth

Amendment by allowing Plaintiff to be “brutally beaten” while inside his secured cell.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Misty Taylor acted with deliberate indifference and reckless

disregard when she allowed an “out of place” inmate to exit his cell, walk through the

security slider door, open Plaintiff’s secured cell door, enter Plaintiff’s cell, and brutally beat

Plaintiff, causing him physical, mental, and emotional injuries. Plaintiff also contends that

Case 2:06-cv-02657-SMM-DKD Document 7 Filed 01/19/07 Page 2 of 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

this conduct constituted pendent state law claims of negligence and gross negligence

(Count 2) and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count 3).

In Count 4, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Holmes violated the Eighth Amendment

when he came to Plaintiff’s cell after the beating and, with deliberate indifference and

reckless disregard, asked Plaintiff, in front of other inmates, how he had received his injuries.

Plaintiff asserts that this resulted in a “snitch jacket” being placed on Plaintiff, which placed

him in substantial risk of harm. Plaintiff contends that, after he was transferred to a different

unit, inmates immediately approached him, informed him that they did not want him on the

yard because they had heard he was a snitch, and threatened him if he did not leave. Plaintiff

also asserts that this conduct constituted pendent state law claims of negligence and gross

negligence (Count 5) and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count 6).

Plaintiff makes similar factual allegations and legal claims against Defendant Lynch (Counts

7, 8, and 9).

In Count 10, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Berger violated the Eighth Amendment

because, as shift commander, she acted with deliberate indifference by creating systematic

deficiencies in staffing and a lack of adequate inmate supervision that “play[ed] a part” in

Defendant Misty Taylor’s misconduct and Plaintiff’s beating. Plaintiff also asserts that this

conduct constituted pendent state law claims of negligence and gross negligence (Count 11)

and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count 12). Plaintiff makes

similar factual allegations and legal claims against Defendant Mummert (Counts 13, 14, and

15) and Defendant Ramos (Counts 16, 17, and 18).

In Count 19, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Bevins violated § 1983 by engaging in

a conspiracy with other officers to cover up Defendant Misty Taylor’s involvement in

Plaintiff’s assault “for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating in any

manner the ‘due course of justice,’ with the intent to deny the Plaintiff the equal protection

of the laws.” Plaintiff also asserts that this conduct constituted pendent state law claims of

negligence, gross negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count 20).

Plaintiff makes similar factual and legal claims against Defendants

Case 2:06-cv-02657-SMM-DKD Document 7 Filed 01/19/07 Page 3 of 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

TERMPSREF - 4 -

Lynch (Counts 21 and 22), Rivers (Counts 23 and 24), Berger (Counts 25 and 26), Mummert

(Counts 27 and 28), and Romweber (Counts 29 and 30).

In Counts 31, 32, 33, and 35, Plaintiff contends that Defendants Houx,

C.O. III Taylor, Mejia, and Schriro violated his First Amendment right to petition the

government for the redress of grievances. In Count 31, he alleges that Defendant Houx failed

to respond to multiple informal resolutions that Plaintiff filed, responded to one inmate letter

by sending Plaintiff a grievance form, and did not respond to a second letter. In Count 32,

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant C.O. III Taylor failed to respond to an inmate letter and

“short stopped” two grievances by failing to timely respond to them, process them,

investigate them, or send proper appeal. In Count 33, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Mejia

failed to respond when Plaintiff wrote her to find out why Defendants Houx and C.O. III

Taylor were violating policies and “short stopping” all correspondence. Plaintiff also alleges

that Defendant Mejia failed to give Plaintiff proper forms to appeal his grievances to a higher

level. In Count 35, Petitioner contends that, although Defendant Schriro has the power to

promulgate ADOC grievance and employee discipline policies and ensure her subordinates’

compliance with them, she violated those policies and allowed her subordinates to violate

them.

In Count 34, Petitioner contends that Defendant Ramos violated his Eighth

Amendment rights because, with deliberate indifference and reckless disregard, Defendant

Ramos failed to remedy the fact that Plaintiff was subjected to overcrowding, a lack of

airflow in cells, excessive heat, feces and urine in the showers, an inability to participate in

recreation because of unsanitary and unhealthy conditions in the recreation areas, and rodent

and insect problems.

In Count 36, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Schriro violated his Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights because she is responsible for maintaining and implementing

various ADOC orders, policies, procedures, codes, and protocols, and is responsible for her

staff “carrying [them] out.” Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Schriro’s subordinates blatantly

violated or ignored those orders, policies, procedures, codes, and protocols. In Count 37,

Case 2:06-cv-02657-SMM-DKD Document 7 Filed 01/19/07 Page 4 of 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

TERMPSREF - 5 -

Plaintiff also asserts that this conduct constituted a pendent state law claim against Defendant

State of Arizona under Arizona Revised Statutes § 31-201.01(F).

In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary compensation and “fees,

disbursements, and all costs of court and interest thereon.”

IV. Failure to State a Claim

A. Conspiracy - Counts 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, and 29

In Counts 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, and 29, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Bevins, Lynch,

Rivers, Berger, Mummer, and Romweber violated § 1983 by engaging in a conspiracy with

other officers to cover up Defendant Misty Taylor’s involvement in Plaintiff’s assault “for

the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating in any manner the ‘due course

of justice,’ with the intent to deny the Plaintiff the equal protection of the laws.” 

Plaintiff’s allegations in these Counts parrot the language of the second clause of 42

U.S.C. § 1985(2), which states, in relevant part, that it is unlawful for “two or more persons

[to] conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any

manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen

the equal protection of the laws . . . .” However, in order to state such a claim, Plaintiff

must allege that the conspirators’ conduct was motivated by the fact that he is a member of

a protected race or suspect class. See Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 821 (9th Cir.

1989); see also Santos v. County of Los Angeles Dep’t of Children and Family Services., 299

F. Supp. 2d 1070, 1081-82 (C.D. Cal. 2004). He has failed to do so. Therefore, the Court

will dismiss without prejudice Counts 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, and 29.

B. First Amendment - Counts 31, 32, 33, and 35

Plaintiff alleges in Counts 31, 32, 33, and 35 that Defendants Houx, C.O. III Taylor,

Mejia, and Schriro violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to petition the government for

the redress of grievances in regard to their violations of ADOC policy.

Prisoners have a First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of

grievances and have a First Amendment right to file prison grievances, Rhodes v. Robinson,

408 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2005), but “[t]here is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a

Case 2:06-cv-02657-SMM-DKD Document 7 Filed 01/19/07 Page 5 of 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

TERMPSREF - 6 -

grievance procedure.” Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Although the

Defendants named in these Counts may have violated ADOC’s grievance policy, “no

constitutional right was violated by the defendants’ failure, if any, to process all of the

grievances [plaintiff] submitted for consideration.” Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495

(8th Cir. 1993). See also Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991) (“When the claim

underlying the administrative grievance involves a constitutional right, the prisoner’s right

to petition the government for redress is the right of access to the courts, which is not

compromised by the prison’s refusal to entertain his grievance.”); Baltoski v. Pretorius, 291

F. Supp. 2d 807, 811 (N.D. Ind. 2003) (“The right to petition the government for redress of

grievances . . . does not guarantee a favorable response, or indeed any response, from state

officials. Moreover, the First Amendment’s right to redress of grievances is satisfied by the

availability of a judicial remedy.”); Ashann-Ra v. Virginia. 112 F. Supp. 2d 559, 569 (W.D.

Va. 2000) (failure to comply with state’s grievance procedure is not actionable under § 1983

and does not compromise an inmate’s right of access to the courts). Thus, the Court will

dismiss without prejudice Counts 31, 32, 33, and 35 for failure to state a claim.

C. Failure to Link - Count 36

In Count 36, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Schriro violated his Eighth Amendment

rights because her subordinates violated and ignored ADOC orders, policies, procedures,

codes, and protocols.

To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a specific

injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link between the

injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377

(1976). To state a claim against a supervisory official, a civil rights complainant must allege

that the supervisory official personally participated in the constitutional deprivation or that

the supervisory official was aware of widespread abuses and, with deliberate indifference to

the inmate’s constitutional rights, failed to take action to prevent further misconduct. See

Ortez v. Washington County, 88 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 1996); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d

Case 2:06-cv-02657-SMM-DKD Document 7 Filed 01/19/07 Page 6 of 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

TERMPSREF - 7 -

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1987); see also

Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978).

There is no respondeatsuperior liability under § 1983, and therefore, a defendant’s position

as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not

impose liability. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691-92; Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045.

Plaintiff does not allege in Count 36 that Defendant Schriro personally participated

in a deprivation of his constitutional rights or that she was aware of widespread abuses and,

with deliberate indifference to the inmate’s constitutional rights, failed to take action to

prevent further misconduct. Nor does Plaintiff allege in Count 36 that Defendant Schriro

formed policies that resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries; he alleges instead that her subordinates

failed to comply with her policies and that this failure resulted in his injuries. Because

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a link in Count 36 between Defendant Schriro’s conduct

and Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, the Court will dismiss without prejudice Count 36.

D. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-201.01(F) - Count 37

In Count 37, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Schriro’s subordinates’ violations and

disregard of ADOC orders, policies, procedures, codes, and protocols constituted a pendent

state law claim under Arizona Revised Statutes § 31-201.01(F) against Defendant State of

Arizona.

Section 31-201.01(F) provides that “[a]ny and all causes of action which may arise

out of tort caused by the director, prison officers or employees of the department, within the

scope of their legal duty, shall run only against the state.” But that subsection does not state

a claim; it “only specifies who may be named as a defendant in an inmate’s lawsuit based on

allegations of tortious acts by [ADOC] personnel; it does not authorize an inmate to file any

particular type of tort action.” Tripati v. State,16 P.3d 783, ¶5 (Ariz. App. 2000) (emphasis

in original). Therefore, the Court will dismiss without prejudice Count 37 for failure to state

a claim, but will not dismiss Defendant State of Arizona from the lawsuit.

Case 2:06-cv-02657-SMM-DKD Document 7 Filed 01/19/07 Page 7 of 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

TERMPSREF - 8 -

V. Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required

Liberally construed, Counts 1 through 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, and 34 state a claim,

and the Court will require Defendants State of Arizona, Ramos, Romweber, Mummert,

Berger, Holmes, Bevins, Misty Taylor, Lynch, and Rivers to answer those claims.

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

comply with any order of the Court).

Case 2:06-cv-02657-SMM-DKD Document 7 Filed 01/19/07 Page 8 of 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

TERMPSREF - 9 -

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Number of Pages (Doc. #1) is granted.

(2) The Clerk of Court must file the lodged Complaint (Doc. #2).

(3) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #4) is granted. 

(4) 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 $6.53.

(5) Counts 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, and 37, and Defendants

Schriro, Houx, C.O. III Taylor, and Mejia are dismissed without prejudice.

(6) Defendants State of Arizona, Ramos, Romweber, Mummert, Berger, Holmes,

Bevins, Misty Taylor, Lynch, and Rivers must answer Counts 1 through 18, 20, 22, 24, 26,

28, 30, and 34.

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

Complaint (Doc. #2), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for

Defendants State of Arizona, Ramos, Romweber, Mummert, Berger, Holmes, Bevins, Misty

Taylor, Lynch, and Rivers.

(8) 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.

(9) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or

complete service of the Summons and 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).

(10) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the Complaint,

and a copy of this Order for future use.

Case 2:06-cv-02657-SMM-DKD Document 7 Filed 01/19/07 Page 9 of 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

TERMPSREF - 10 -

(11) 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) and (j)(2) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 4.1(c) of the Arizona 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 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, Complaint, and this Order upon

Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) or (j)(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, 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) and (5) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

(12) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and Complaint

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

(13) Defendants State of Arizona, Ramos, Romweber, Mummert, Berger, Holmes,

Bevins, Misty Taylor, Lynch, and Rivers must answer the 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.

Case 2:06-cv-02657-SMM-DKD Document 7 Filed 01/19/07 Page 10 of 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

TERMPSREF - 11 -

(14) 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.

(15) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan pursuant to Rules

72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings.

DATED this 18th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02657-SMM-DKD Document 7 Filed 01/19/07 Page 11 of 11