Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01456/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01456-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Royce-Wayne Gibbons, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1456-PHX-SMM (JCG)

ORDER

On July 9, 2007, Plaintiff Royce-Wayne Gibbons, who is confined in the Maricopa

County Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a pro se Complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Defendant removed the action to this Court on July 31, 2007 and paid the $350.00 filing fee.

On August 21, 2007, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend (Doc. #6). On

September 24, 2007, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint and Application to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #11). On October 2, 2007, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss

the First Amended Complaint (Doc. #13). 

The Court will screen the Amended Complaint and order an answer on Counts I and

VI. The Court will also deny the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as moot and will

deny the Motion to Dismiss as premature.

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 has raised

Case 2:07-cv-01456-SMM Document 14 Filed 10/11/07 Page 1 of 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

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). 

II. Amended Complaint

Plaintiff names Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio as Defendant to the Amended

Complaint. Plaintiff alleges eight grounds for relief in the Amended Complaint: (1)

Plaintiff’s First Amended Rights are violated by Defendant’s mail policy, which prohibits

inmates from receiving mail sent in envelopes; (2) the mail policy violates 42 U.S.C. § 1981;

(3) the mail policy violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (4) the mail policy violates Plaintiff’s

Fourteenth Amendment rights; (5) Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights are violated by the

policy of only allowing inmates to view a few television channels and listen to one radio

station; (6) Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee, is denied his Fifteenth Amendment right to vote; (7)

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights are violated by Defendant’s policy of playing such

songs as “I Fought the Law and Law Won,” and “Jailhouse Rock” at a loud volume over the

public address system; and (8) the mail policy violates Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Plaintiff seeks money damages.

Counts I and VI adequately state a claim and the Court will require Defendant to

respond to these allegations.

III. Failure to State a Claim

A. Counts II, III, IV, and VIII

In Counts II, III, IV, and VIII, Plaintiff raises claims that are factually identical to

those in Count I. Although Plaintiff appears to allege a different legal bases for relief in each

additional claim, Plaintiff has failed to explain how these bases are substantially different

from his claims in Count I. Because the Court finds no reason to treat each basis as a

separate allegation, the Court will dismiss Counts II, III, IV, and VIII.

B. Counts V and VII

In Counts V and VII, Plaintiff has failed to show a constitutional deprivation. “It

cannot be said that all . . . conditions . . . even if discomforting or undesirable, amount to

Case 2:07-cv-01456-SMM Document 14 Filed 10/11/07 Page 2 of 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

deprivations of constitutional dimensions . . . [A] federal court is not the proper forum for

challenging or changing every aspect of the harsh realities of confinement unless conditions

cannot be tolerated under the Constitution.” Thomas v. Smith, 559 F.Supp. 223, 224

(W.D.N.Y. 1983) (citing Griffin v. Smith, 493 F. Supp. 129 (W.D.N.Y. 1980)). In Counts

V and VII Plaintiff alleges that he is denied access to certain television programs and that

insulting music is frequently “blared” over the public address system in the Jail.

Denial of access to television programs simply does not rise to the level of a

constitutional violation. Similarly, the broadcasting of music over the public address system

might be deemed petty or insulting, but such actions also do not rise to the level of

constitutional violations. Consequently, Counts V and VII will be dismissed for failure to

state a claim.

IV. Motions

A. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

This action was removed from state court by Defendant and Defendant is therefore

required to pay the applicable filing fee. Defendant has done so. Plaintiff’s Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be denied as moot.

B. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

Because Defendant filed the Motion to Dismiss before the Court completed mandatory

statutory screening of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Court will deny the Motion as

premature. Defendant may resubmit the Motion as to Plaintiff’s remaining claims.

V. Warnings

A. 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.

B. Copies

Plaintiff must serve Defendant, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a copy

Case 2:07-cv-01456-SMM Document 14 Filed 10/11/07 Page 3 of 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

TERMPSREF - 4 -

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.

C. 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) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #12) is DENIED

as MOOT.

(2) Counts II, III, IV, V, VII, and VIII of the Amended Complaint (Doc. #11) are

DISMISSED without prejudice.

(3) Defendant Arpaio must answer Counts I and VI. 

(4) 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.

(5) Defendant’s October 2, 2007 Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #13) is DENIED

without prejudice as premature.

(6) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Guerin pursuant to Rules

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

DATED this 10th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01456-SMM Document 14 Filed 10/11/07 Page 4 of 4