Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02276/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02276-0/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

WO KM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alfredo Garcia, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2276-PHX-GMS (MEA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Alfredo Garcia, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexSafford, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On November 13, 2009, the Court denied the

Application to Proceed with leave to re-file. On December 3, 2009, Plaintiff filed a new

Application to Proceed. By Order filed January 7, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff in forma

pauperis status and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. On January 25, 2010,

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. The Court will dismiss the action.

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

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). 

Case 2:09-cv-02276-GMS--MEA Document 11 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 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

- 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, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (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 1950. 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 1951.

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). The Court

should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type of advice “would

undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225,

231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to decide whether the court was

required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). 

II. Amended Complaint

Plaintiff names the following Defendants in the Amended Complaint: Maricopa

County, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Joe Arpaio, and Unknown

MCSO Officer/Driver.

Plaintiff’s sole ground for relief is that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were

violated when he was injured in an auto accident while incarcerated in the Maricopa County

Case 2:09-cv-02276-GMS--MEA Document 11 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Jail. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Unknown MCSO Officer/Driver was responsible for

the accident because he failed to stop at a four-way intersection. Plaintiff also alleges that

the van was overcrowded and that there were no seatbelts. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief

and money damages.

III. Failure to State a Claim

A. Defendants Maricopa County, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors

and Arpaio

As the Court informed Plaintiff in its last screening Order, 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. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). Plaintiff has not made

any allegations against Defendants Maricopa County, Maricopa County Board of

Supervisors, or Arpaio in the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has therefore failed to state a

claim against these Defendants.

B. Negligence

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

(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).

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

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

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

necessities.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 

Second, the prison official must have a “sufficiently culpable state of mind,” i.e., he

must act with deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834.

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

Case 2:09-cv-02276-GMS--MEA Document 11 Filed 03/04/10 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

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

Id. at 837 (emphasis added).

As with the original Complaint, Plaintiff has not alleged facts in the Amended

Complaint that demonstrate the Unknown Detention Officer was deliberately indifferent to

Plaintiff’s health or safety. Plaintiff’s facts show, at most, that the Officer maybe have acted

carelessly or negligently while driving.

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

care for the prisoner’s safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.

97, 106 (1976) and Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986)). The Supreme Court

elaborated:

An act or omission unaccompanied by knowledge of a significant risk of harm

might well be something society wishes to discourage, and if harm does result

society might well wish to assure compensation. The common law reflects

such concerns when it imposes tort liability on a purely objective basis. But

an official’s failure to alleviate a significant risk that he should have perceived

but did not, while no cause for commendation, cannot under our cases be

condemned as the infliction of punishment.

Id. at 837 (citations omitted). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim and will be

dismissed.

IV. Dismissal without Leave to Amend

Leave to amend need not be given if a complaint as amended is subject to dismissal.

Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). 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). Failure to cure deficiencies by previous

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

granting leave to amend. Moore, 885 F.2d at 538. The Court has reviewed the original

Complaint and Amended Complaint and finds that further amendment of Plaintiff’s claims

would be futile. The Court will therefore dismiss the Amended Complaint without leave to

amend.

Case 2:09-cv-02276-GMS--MEA Document 11 Filed 03/04/10 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) The Amended Complaint (Doc. #10) is dismissed for failure to state a claim

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment

accordingly.

(2) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the dismissal

for failure to state a claim may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DATED this 4th day of March, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02276-GMS--MEA Document 11 Filed 03/04/10 Page 5 of 5