Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01855/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01855-0/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 

JDDL-K 

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Randy Allen Vice, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-01855-PHX-SPL (JZB) 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Randy Allen Vice, who is confined in the Maricopa County Durango Jail, 

has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the 

Complaint with leave to amend. 

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). 

The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing fee will be 

collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited to 

Plaintiff’s trust account 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. 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 2:14-cv-01855-SPL--JZB Document 7 Filed 10/24/14 Page 1 of 9
- 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 

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). 

 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) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 

does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 

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

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 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. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible 

claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw 

on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. 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)). 

Case 2:14-cv-01855-SPL--JZB Document 7 Filed 10/24/14 Page 2 of 9
- 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-K 

 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 

facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 

of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 

possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 

III. Complaint 

 In his three-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Maricopa County, the Durango Jail Commander, the Towers Jail Commander, the 

Maricopa County Detention Center, and the Towers Jail. In Count One, Plaintiff raises a 

claim regarding “food/nutrition”; in Count Two, he raises a claim regarding 

“heating/cooling”; and in Count Three, he raises a claim regarding “housing/clothing.” 

Each claim consists of a laundry list of protestations regarding Plaintiff’s conditions of 

confinement. In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim

 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 

v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a 

liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the 

claim that were not initially pled. Id. 

 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). There is no respondeat superior 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 v. New York City Dep’t 

of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978); Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1067 

(9th Cir. 1992); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “Because vicarious 

liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each 

Case 2:14-cv-01855-SPL--JZB Document 7 Filed 10/24/14 Page 3 of 9
- 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-K 

Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has 

violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. “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). 

A. Defendants Arpaio, Durango Jail Commander, and Towers Jail 

Commander 

 Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants Arpaio, Durango Jail Commander, and 

Towers Jail Commander personally participated in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights, were aware of a deprivation and failed to act, or formed policies that 

resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff has made no allegations at all against these 

Defendants. Thus, the Court will dismiss without prejudice Defendants Arpaio, Durango 

Jail Commander, and Towers Jail Commander. 

B. Defendant Maricopa County

 A municipality may not be sued under § 1983 solely because an injury was 

inflicted by one of its employees or agents. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 

1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). To state a claim against a municipality under § 1983, a 

plaintiff must allege facts to support that his constitutional rights were violated pursuant 

to an official policy or custom of the municipality. Cortez v. County of Los Angeles, 294 

F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91). A § 1983 claim 

against a municipal defendant “cannot succeed as a matter of law” unless a plaintiff: 

(1) contends that the municipal defendant maintains a policy or custom pertinent to the 

plaintiff’s alleged injury; and (2) explains how such policy or custom caused the 

plaintiff’s injury. Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1080 (9th Cir. 2006). 

 Plaintiff makes no allegations against Defendant Maricopa County and, therefore, 

fails to allege facts to support that Defendant Maricopa County maintained a policy or 

custom that resulted in the violation of his federal constitutional rights. Accordingly, 

Case 2:14-cv-01855-SPL--JZB Document 7 Filed 10/24/14 Page 4 of 9
- 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-K 

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendant Maricopa County, and the Court 

will dismiss without prejudice Defendant Maricopa County. 

C. Defendants Maricopa County Detention Center and Towers Jail

 Defendants Maricopa County Detention Center and Towers Jail are not proper 

Defendants. Section 1983 imposes liability on any “person” who violates an individual’s 

federal rights while acting under color of state law. Defendants Maricopa County 

Detention Center and Towers Jail are buildings or collections of buildings, neither is a 

person or legally created entity capable of being sued. Therefore, the Court will dismiss 

Defendants Maricopa County Detention Center and Towers Jail. 

V. Leave to Amend 

 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a 

first amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will 

mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first amended complaint. If 

Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the amended 

complaint and dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 

 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First 

Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 

entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 

Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 

 A first amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 

F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat an original 

complaint as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised 

in the original complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without 

prejudice is waived if it is not alleged in a first amended complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 

. . . . 

Case 2:14-cv-01855-SPL--JZB Document 7 Filed 10/24/14 Page 5 of 9
- 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-K 

 If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements 

telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name 

of the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to 

do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of 

Plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of 

that Defendant’s conduct. See Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371-72, 377. 

 Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he names as a Defendant. If 

Plaintiff fails to affirmatively link the conduct of each named Defendant with the specific 

injury suffered by Plaintiff, the allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim. Conclusory allegations that a Defendant or group of 

Defendants has violated a constitutional right are not acceptable and will be 

dismissed. 

 In addition, if Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he should take note that 

§ 1983 provides a cause of action against persons acting under color of state law who 

have violated rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and federal law. 42 

U.S.C. § 1983; see also Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F.3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995). A 

pretrial detainee’s claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement arises from the 

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause rather than from the Eighth Amendment 

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 and 

n.16 (1979). Nevertheless, the same standards are applied, requiring proof that the 

defendant acted with deliberate indifference. See Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 

(9th Cir. 1998). 

 Deliberate indifference is a higher standard than negligence or lack of ordinary 

due care for the prisoner’s safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994). To 

state a claim of deliberate indifference, plaintiffs must meet a two-part test. “First, the 

alleged constitutional deprivation must be, objectively, sufficiently serious”; and the 

“official’s act or omission must result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of 

life’s necessities.” Id. at 834 (internal quotations omitted). Second, the prison official 

Case 2:14-cv-01855-SPL--JZB Document 7 Filed 10/24/14 Page 6 of 9
- 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-K 

must have a “sufficiently culpable state of mind,” i.e., he must act with “deliberate 

indifference to inmate health or safety.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In defining 

“deliberate indifference” in this context, the Supreme Court has imposed a subjective 

test: “the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn 

that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 

837 (emphasis added). 

 The specific inquiry with respect to pretrial detainees is whether the prison 

conditions amount to “punishment” without due process in violation of the Fourteenth 

Amendment. Bell, 441 U.S. at 535. A jail or prison must provide prisoners with 

“adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” 

Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982). However, this does not mean that 

federal courts can, or should, interfere whenever prisoners are inconvenienced or suffer 

de minimis injuries. See Bell, 441 U.S. at 539 n.21 (noting that a de minimis level of 

imposition does not rise to a constitutional violation). Whether a condition of 

confinement rises to the level of a constitutional violation may depend, in part, on the 

duration of an inmate’s exposure to that condition. See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 

1089 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686-87 (1978)). 

 With respect to food, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require “only that 

prisoners receive food that is adequate to maintain health; it need not be tasty or 

aesthetically pleasing. ‘The fact that the food occasionally contains foreign objects or 

sometimes is served cold, while unpleasant, does not amount to a constitutional 

deprivation.’” LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted) 

(quoting Hamm v. DeKalb County, 774 F.2d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1985)). Spoiled food 

and foul water are inadequate to maintain health. Keenan, 83 F.3d at 1091. An inmate 

may state a claim where he alleges that he is served meals with insufficient calories for 

long periods of time. LeMaire, 12 F.3d at 1456. 

 In addition, overcrowding alone does not violate the Eighth or Fourteenth 

Amendments. Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1249. A plaintiff may, however, state a cognizable 

Case 2:14-cv-01855-SPL--JZB Document 7 Filed 10/24/14 Page 7 of 9
- 8 - 

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 

claim where he or she alleges that overcrowding results in some unconstitutional 

condition. See, e.g., Akao v. Shimoda, 832 F.2d 119, 120 (9th Cir. 1987) (reversing 

district court’s dismissal of claim that overcrowding caused increased stress, tension, and 

communicable diseases, and confrontations between inmates); see also Toussaint v. 

Yockey, 722 F.2d 1490, 1492 (9th Cir. 1984) (constitutional violation may occur as a 

result of overcrowded prison conditions causing increased violence, tension and 

psychiatric problems). 

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 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 “Strike”

 Because the Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a claim, if Plaintiff 

fails to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in this Order, the 

dismissal may count as a “strike” under the “3-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Under the 3-strikes provision, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil 

judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more 

Case 2:14-cv-01855-SPL--JZB Document 7 Filed 10/24/14 Page 8 of 9
- 9 - 

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 

prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal 

in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, 

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner 

is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

E. 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, 963 

F.2d at 1260-61 (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. 2) is granted. 

 (2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government 

agency, Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is not assessed an initial partial 

filing fee. 

(3) The Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff 

has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended complaint in 

compliance with this Order. 

 (4) If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of 

Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with 

prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

(5) The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff a court-approved form for filing a 

civil rights complaint by a prisoner. 

Dated this 24th day of October, 2014.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01855-SPL--JZB Document 7 Filed 10/24/14 Page 9 of 9