Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03592/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03592-0/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

1

 Many inmates apparently believe that they will receive an immediate payout from a fund

established in Hart v. Hill, No. CV 77-0479-PHX-EHC (MS) (D. Ariz.). No such fund exists. The

inmates in Hart asked for injunctive relief and not monetary damages. The Court at this time

expresses no opinion on whether Plaintiff’s lawsuit may result in an award of damages. 

TERMPSREF

BL

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Roy Garza, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3592-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Roy Garza, currently confined in the Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail

in Phoenix, Arizona, filed a pro se Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1

 This action is

one of more than one thousand lawsuits filed in this district since September 2004 alleging

that the overcrowded conditions in the Maricopa County jail system have resulted in a

variety of constitutional violations. The Court will order Defendant Arpaio to answer the

Complaint.

A. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis & Filing Fee

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis will be grant ed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is required t o pay the statutory filing fee of

$250.00 for this action. An initial partial filing fee of $4.80 will be assessed by this Order.

Case 2:05-cv-03592-DGC-ECV Document 4 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the Court will direct the appropriate agency to

collect the initial p art ial filing fee from Plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk

of Court. Thereafter, Plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of 20 percent of the

p receding month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s trust account. These payments will be

forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in

Plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Plaintiff should take notice that if he is released before the filing fee is paid in full,

he must p ay t he remaining unpaid amount of the filing fee within 120 days of the date of

his release. If Plaintiff fails to pay the remainder of the filing fee within 120 day s of the date

of his release, the action will be dismissed, unless Plaintiff shows good cause, in writing,

why he is unable to pay the remainder of the filing fee.

B. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or port ion thereof if the Plaintiff has raised

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim up on 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). The Court also must dismiss a complaint or portion

thereof if Plaintiff fails to exhaust any administrative remedy available to him. 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a). 

C. Complaint

Plaintiff lists Joseph M. Arpaio as a Defendant twice. To the extent Plaintiff seeks

to name the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, in Arizona, the responsibility of operating

jails and caring for prisoners is placed by law upon the sheriff. See A.R.S. § 11-441(A)(5);

A.R.S. § 31-101. A sheriff’s office is simply an administrative creation of the county sheriff

to allow him to carry out his statutory duties, and not a “ p erson” amenable to suit pursuant

to § 1983. Accordingly, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is an improper Defendant.

Case 2:05-cv-03592-DGC-ECV Document 4 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated by (1) lack of privacy due

to the fact that male and female officers are present when he uses the toilet or showers, and

(2) unsanitary conditions because of lack of cleaning supplies resulting in a staph

infection. Plaintiff seeks monetary and other relief.

Throughout his Complaint, Plaintiff refers to Hart v. Hill, No. CIV 77-0479-PHX-EHC

(D. Ariz.), claiming that the conditions of his confinement violated an Amended Judgment

in that action. Jurisdiction to enforce the judgment is ret ained by the court which entered

it. Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 853 (9th Cir. 2004). A civil rights action is not the

proper means by which t o enforce the decree. Cagle v. Sutherland, 334 F.3d 980, 986 (11th

Cir. 2003); Klein v. Zavaras, 80 F.3d 432, 435 (10th Cir. 1996); DeGidio v. Pung, 920 F.2d 525,

534 (8th Cir.1990); Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1122-23 (5th Cir. 1986). Standing

alone, remedial orders cannot serve as a substantive basis for a § 1983 claim for damages

because such orders do not create “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution and laws.” Green, 788 F.3d at 1123-24. Remedial decrees are the means by

which unconstitutional conditions are corrected but they do not create or enlarge

constitutional rights. Id. at 1123. To the extent Plaintiff seeks t o enforce Hart v. Hill, his

claim is not properly brought in this action. 

D. Claims to be Served

At this early st age, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that his constitutional rights were

violated by (1) allowing male and female officers to observe him using the toilets and

showers, and (2) unsanitary conditions. Defendant Arpaio will be ordered to answer the

Complaint.

E. Rule 41 Cautionary Notice

Plaintiff should take notice that if he fails to timely comply with every provision of this

Order, or any order entered in this matter, this action will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

(district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any order of the Court).

Case 2:05-cv-03592-DGC-ECV Document 4 Filed 11/16/05 Page 3 of 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

TERMPSREF - 4 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. # 1) is granted

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

(2) Plaint iff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for this action.

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $4.80. All fees shall be collected and paid

in accordance with this Court=s Order to the appropriate government agency filed

concurrently herewith.

(3) Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is dismissed without prejudice.

(4) Defendant Arpaio is ordered to answer the Complaint.

(5) The Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff a service packet including t he Complaint

(Doc. #1), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for Defendant

Arpaio.

(6) Plaintiff shall complete and ret urn t he 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 eit her obtain a waiver of service of the summons or complete

service of the Summons and Complaint on the Defendant wit hin 120 days of the filing of

the complaint or within 60 day s of the filing of this Order, whichever is later, the action may

be dismissed as t o each Defendant not served pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i).

(8) The United Stat es Marshal shall retain the Summons, a copy of the Complaint,

and a copy of this Order for future use.

(9) The United States Marshal shall notify Defendant of the commencement of t his

action and request waiver of service of t he summons pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. The notice to Defendant shall include a copy of this Order. The

Marshal shall file waivers of service of the summons or requests for waivers that were

ret urned as undeliverable as soon as they are received. If a waiver of service of summons

Case 2:05-cv-03592-DGC-ECV Document 4 Filed 11/16/05 Page 4 of 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

TERMPSREF - 5 -

is not returned by a Defendant within thirty days from the date the request for waiver was

sent by the Marshal, the Marshal shall:

(a) Personally serve copies of the Summons, Complaint, and this Order upon

the Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

(b) Within 10 days after personal service is effected, file the return of service

for the Defendant , along with evidence of the attempt to secure a waiver of service

of the summons and of the costs subsequently incurred in effect ing service upon

the Defendant. The costs of service shall be enumerated on the return of service

form (USM-285) and shall 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.

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

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

(11) Defendant shall answer t he 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 responsive pleading shall st at e t he Defendant by name on

whose behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, responsive pleading, or other

motion or paper that does not identify the Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed.

(13) Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant, or if appearance has been entered by

counsel, upon counsel, a copy of every furt her pleading or other document submitted for

consideration by the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original document and copy, to

be filed with the Clerk of t he Court , a certificate stating the date a true and correct copy of

the pleading or document was mailed to Defendant or counsel. Any paper received by a

Case 2:05-cv-03592-DGC-ECV Document 4 Filed 11/16/05 Page 5 of 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

TERMPSREF - 6 -

District Court Judge or Magistrate Judge which has not been filed with the Clerk of Court

may be disregarded by the Court.

(14) At all times during the pendency of this action, Plaintiff shall immediat ely

advise the Court and the United States Marshal of any change of address and its effect ive

date. Such notice shall be captioned “NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.” The notice

shall contain only information pertaining t o t he change of address and its effective date.

Plaintiff shall serve a copy of the notice on all opposing parties. T he notice shall not

include any motions for any other relief. Failure to file a Notice of Change of Address may

result in the dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

(15) A clear, legible copy of every pleading or other document filed shall

accompany each original p leading or other document filed with the Clerk for use by the

District Judge or Magistrate Judge t o whom t he case is assigned. Failure to comply with

this requirement may result in the pleading or document being stricken wit hout further

notice to Plaintiff. 

(16) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss p ursuant to Local

Rules of Civil Procedure 72.1 and 72.2 for further proceedings.

DATED this 16th day of November, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-03592-DGC-ECV Document 4 Filed 11/16/05 Page 6 of 6