Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01927/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01927-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christopher Lavor, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1927-PHX-SMM (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Christopher Lavor, who is confined in the Maricopa County Towers Jail, 

filed a pro se Complaint in the Maricopa County Superior Court. On October 9, 2007,

Defendants removed the action to this Court and paid the $350.00 filing fee.

The Court will dismiss Count III of the Complaint and will remand Counts I and II

to the state court.

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). 

II. Complaint

Plaintiff names Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, John Does

Case 2:07-cv-01927-SMM--ECV Document 4 Filed 10/23/07 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 -

I-V, and Black Entities I-V as Defendants to the Complaint. Plaintiff alleges three grounds

for relief in the Complaint.

In Count I, Plaintiff claims that Defendants acted negligently in failing to assign

Plaintiff to a lower bunk, as required by Correctional Health Services. Plaintiff claims that

as a result of being wrongfully assigned to a top bunk, he fell while trying to climb into the

to bunk, struck his head, and sustained serious permanent physical injury.

In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ failure to assign him to a top bunk

constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In Count III, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ actions violated his Fifth, Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff seeks money damages.

III. Removal

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1441 authorizes removal of any civil action brought in the state court

over which the federal district courts would have original jurisdiction. “Only . . . actions that

originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the

defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Absent diversity of

citizenship (not present here), federal question jurisdiction is required. Federal district courts

have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution of the United

States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, including those actions where the plaintiff has requested

a remedy under state law for an alleged violation of a federal substantive right. Smith v.

Kansas City Title & Trust, 255 U.S. 180, 199 (1921).

Defendants assert that removal is proper in this action because Plaintiff is seeking

relief under federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

IV. Failure to State a Claim–Federal Law Claims

A. Eighth Amendment Claims

Title 42 U.S.C. § 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

Case 2:07-cv-01927-SMM--ECV Document 4 Filed 10/23/07 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 -

Cir. 1995). 

Under the Eighth Amendment, punishment may not be “barbarous” nor may it

contravene society’s “evolving standards of decency.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,

346 (1981). Only deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities

are sufficiently grave for an Eighth Amendment violation. Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726,

731 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted). These are “deprivations of essential food, medical

care, or sanitation” or “other conditions intolerable for prison confinement.” Rhodes, 452

U.S. at 348. To determine whether a violation has occurred, a Court should consider the

circumstances, nature and duration of a deprivation of these necessities. Johnson, 217 F.3d

at 731. “The more basic the need, the shorter the time it can be withheld.” Hoptowit v. Ray,

682 F.2d 1287, 1259 (9th Cir. 1982). 

An Eighth Amendment claim also 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. (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) and

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986)). To act with deliberate indifference, a prison

official must both know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health; 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. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.

In Count III, Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate that Defendants

were deliberately indifferent to a risk of serious harm to Plaintiff’s health or safety. The

facts, as alleged by Plaintiff, suggest at most that Defendants were negligent or reckless in

failing to assign Plaintiff to a lower bunk. This is insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment

§ 1983 claim. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims in Count III must be dismissed for

failure to state a claim.

B. Due Process Claims

Plaintiff also appears to allege that his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were

violated by Defendants’ failure to properly respond to his grievances. An inmate has no freeCase 2:07-cv-01927-SMM--ECV Document 4 Filed 10/23/07 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 -

standing constitutional right to a grievance process. In Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640

(9th Cir. 1988), the Ninth Circuit held that a prisoner does not have a protected liberty

interest in prison grievance procedures. Other circuits have held similarly. See Antonelli v.

Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir.1996); Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994);

Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991). Without a liberty interest, Plaintiff has no

procedural due process rights at stake. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendment claims in Count III must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

V. Pendent State Law Claims

Because the Court is dismissing Plaintiff’s federal claims in Count III, only his state

law claims in Counts I and II remain. “[A] district court has discretion to remand to state

court a removed case involving pendent claims upon a proper determination that retaining

jurisdiction over the case would be inappropriate.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484

U.S. 343, 357 (1988). “[W]hen the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in

its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise

of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice.” Id. at 350 (footnote omitted).

 The Court, in its discretion, concludes that remand of the pendent claims to the state

court “best serves the principles of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity which

underlie the pendent jurisdiction doctrine.” Id. at 357. Thus, the Court will remand the

pendent state court claims to the Maricopa County Superior Court.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Count III of Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed with the Notice of Removal, is

dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

(2) The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims in

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

(3) This matter is remanded to the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona.

//

//

//

Case 2:07-cv-01927-SMM--ECV Document 4 Filed 10/23/07 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 -

(4) The Clerk of Court must mail a certified copy of this Order to:

Michael K. Jeanes

Clerk of the Superior Court

Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court

201 West Jefferson

Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2205

(5) The Clerk of Court must close this case.

DATED this 22nd day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01927-SMM--ECV Document 4 Filed 10/23/07 Page 5 of 5