Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00533/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00533-0/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

TERMPSREF 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Brian Lyle Anderson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-533-PHX-JWS (MEA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Brian Lyle Anderson, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexEyman, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court will order Defendants Madrid, Cluff,

Curran, and Trujillo to answer Count III of the Complaint and will dismiss the remaining

claims and Defendants 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).

The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The statutory

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

Case 2:11-cv-00533-JWS Document 5 Filed 04/04/11 Page 1 of 10
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 -

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). 

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.

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

Case 2:11-cv-00533-JWS Document 5 Filed 04/04/11 Page 2 of 10
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 -

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,

94 (2007) (per curiam)).

III. Complaint

Plaintiff names the following Defendants in the Complaint: the Arizona Department

of Corrections (“ADOC”), ADOC Director Charles L. Ryan, Warden Ernie Trujillo, Deputy

Warden Curran, Correctional Officer IV M. Madrid, Assistant Deputy Warden David Cluff,

Paralegal B. Ulibarri, Access Monitor/Paralegal Daryl Johnson, Sergeant Sturm, Correctional

Officer II Mangan, and Chaplain J. Vicklund.

Plaintiff raises four grounds for relief in the Complaint:

(1) Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights are violated by ADOC’s policy of

prohibiting inmates from possessing hardcover books, including religious

texts;

(2) Plaintiff is denied sufficient legal supplies and research materials, in violation

of his right of access to the court;

(3) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights are violated by his present housing

assignment, where other inmates threaten to hurt or kill him, and by

Defendants’ refusal to move him; and

(4) Plaintiff receives insufficient food in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and money damages.

IV. Failure to State a Claim

A. Defendants

1. Arizona Department of Corrections

The Arizona Department of Corrections is not a proper Defendant. Under the

Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a state or state agency may not

be sued in federal court without its consent. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465

U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, “a

state is not a ‘person’ for purposes of section 1983. Likewise ‘arms of the State’ such as the

Arizona Department of Corrections are not ‘persons’ under section 1983.” Gilbreath v.

Case 2:11-cv-00533-JWS Document 5 Filed 04/04/11 Page 3 of 10
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 -

Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1327 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). The Court

will therefore dismiss Defendant Arizona Department of Corrections.

2. Charles Ryan

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 Department of Social Services, 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 Government-official defendant, through the

official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948.

Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant Ryan personally participated in a deprivation

of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, was aware of a deprivation and failed to act, or formed

policies that resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries. The Court will therefore dismiss without

prejudice Defendant Ryan.

B. Count I

In Count I, Plaintiff claims that his First Amendment rights are violated because he

is not allowed to possess hardcover books and he cannot find his religious books in soft cover

editions.

To state a First Amendment, free-exercise-of-religion claim, a plaintiff must allege

that a defendant burdened the practice of plaintiff’s religion by preventing him from

engaging in a sincerely held religious belief and that the defendant did so without any

justification reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Shakur v. Schriro, 514

F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2008).

Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants’ policy of prohibiting hardcover books is

without a legitimate penological interest. To the contrary, Plaintiff states that Defendants

Case 2:11-cv-00533-JWS Document 5 Filed 04/04/11 Page 4 of 10
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 -

informed him that hardcover books are prohibited because they pose a security risk. See Bell

v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 550-51(1979) (Hardback books present an obvious security risk,

because “money, drugs, and weapons easily may be secreted in the bindings.”). Accordingly,

the Court will dismiss Count I for failure to state a claim.

C. Count II

The right of meaningful access to the courts prohibits officials from actively

interfering with inmates’ attempts to prepare or file legal documents. Lewis v. Casey, 518

U.S. 343, 350 (1996). The right of access to the courts is only a right to bring petitions or

complaints to federal court and not a right to discover such claims or even to ligate them

effectively once filed with a court. Id. at 354. The right “guarantees no particular

methodology but rather the conferral of a capability–the capability of bringing contemplated

challenges to sentences or conditions of confinement before the courts.” Id. at 356. 

As a matter of standing, for an access-to-courts claim, a plaintiff must show that he

suffered an “actual injury” with respect to contemplated litigation. Id. at 349. To show

actual injury with respect to contemplated litigation, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the

defendants’ conduct frustrated or impeded him from bringing to court a nonfrivolous claim

that he wished to present. Id. at 352-53.

“[T]he injury requirement is not satisfied by just any type of frustrated legal claim.”

Id. at 354. The right of access to the courts “does not guarantee inmates the wherewithal to

transform themselves into litigating engines capable of filing everything from shareholder

derivative actions to slip-and-fall claims.” Id. at 355. The nonfrivolous claim must be a

direct or collateral attack on the inmate’s sentence or a challenge to the conditions of his

confinement. Id. “Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental

(and perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration.” Id. (emphasis

in original).

In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that he is denied sufficient legal supplies and access to

research materials. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate an actual injury in Count II; he has not

Case 2:11-cv-00533-JWS Document 5 Filed 04/04/11 Page 5 of 10
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 -

demonstrated that he was prevented from bringing to court a nonfrivolous claim he wished

to present. The Court will therefore dismiss Count II for failure to state a claim.

D. Count IV

In Count IV, Plaintiff claims that his Eighth Amendment rights are violated because

he is not given sufficient food. Plaintiff further alleges that he has complained to Defendants

Curran, Cluff, and Trujillo, but that when Defendants inspect kitchen trays, the trays have

the required amount of food. Plaintiff claims that when Defendants are not present, portions

are smaller.

An Eighth Amendment claim requires a sufficiently culpable state of mind by the

Defendants, known as “deliberate indifference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834

(1994). Deliberate indifference is a higher standard than negligence or lack of ordinary due

care for the prisoner’s safety. Id. at 835. 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.” Id. at 834. 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. Id. 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). 

Plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating that Defendants were deliberately

indifferent; Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants are aware of the smaller portions of food

that Plaintiff claims he receives. Plaintiff has shown only that during inspections, Defendants

have observed the appropriate amount of food on inmates’ trays. Plaintiff has therefore

failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim in Count IV and the Court will dismiss Count IV.

Case 2:11-cv-00533-JWS Document 5 Filed 04/04/11 Page 6 of 10
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 -

V. Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required

In Count III, Plaintiff claims that he is threatened with physical harm by other inmates

and that Defendants Madrid, Cluff, Curran, and Trujillo have refused to protect Plaintiff by

moving him to another housing area.

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim

in Count III. The Court will require Defendants Madrid, Cluff, Curran, and Trujillo to answer

Count III of the Complaint.

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,

Case 2:11-cv-00533-JWS Document 5 Filed 04/04/11 Page 7 of 10
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

If a Defendant is an officer or employee of the Arizona Department of Corrections,

Plaintiff must list the address of the specific institution where the officer or employee works.

Service cannot be effected on an officer or employee at the Central Office of the Arizona

Department of Corrections unless the officer or employee works there.

TERMPSREF - 8 -

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. 3) 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) Counts I, II, and IV, and Defendants Arizona Department of Corrections,

Ryan, Ulibarri, Johnson, Sturm, Mangan, and Vicklund are dismissed without prejudice.

(4) Defendants Madrid, Cluff, Curran, and Trujillo must answer Count III of the

Complaint. 

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

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

Defendants Madrid, Cluff, Curran, and Trujillo.

(6) Plaintiff must complete1

 and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court

within 21 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 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).

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

and a copy of this Order for future use.

(9) 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) of the Federal

Case 2:11-cv-00533-JWS Document 5 Filed 04/04/11 Page 8 of 10
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 -

Rules of Civil Procedure. The notice to Defendants must include a copy of this Order. The

Marshal must immediately file signed waivers of service of the summons. If a waiver

of service of summons is returned as undeliverable or 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) 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) 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

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

(11) Defendants 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.

(12) 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.

Case 2:11-cv-00533-JWS Document 5 Filed 04/04/11 Page 9 of 10
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 -

(13) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey pursuant to Rules

72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial proceedings as authorized

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

DATED this 1st day of April 2011.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-00533-JWS Document 5 Filed 04/04/11 Page 10 of 10