Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01157/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01157-0/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

TERMPSREF 28

MDR

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Fletcher Kop, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Kalum Kalani, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1157-PHX-DGC (MEA)

ORDER

On May 6, 2009, Plaintiff Fletcher Kop, who is confined in the Corrections

Corporation of America’s Saguaro Correctional Center (CCA-SCC) in Eloy, Arizona, filed

a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District

Court for the District of Hawaii. In a May 13, 2009 Order, United States District Court

Judge J. Michael Seabright transferred the case to the District of Arizona. 

In a June 18, 2009 Order, the Court noted that Plaintiff had not paid the filing fee or

filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and gave Plaintiff 30 days to either pay

the fee or file an Application to Proceed. On July 13, 2009, Plaintiff paid the filing fee.

 The Court will order Defendants Estrada, Thomas, Lopez, and Meiner to answer the

Complaint and will dismiss Defendants Kalani and Jinbo without prejudice. 

. . . .

. . . .

Case 2:09-cv-01157-DGC Document 10 Filed 08/31/09 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 -

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). 

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.

II. Complaint

In his two-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Hawaii Department of Public Safety

Contract Monitor Scott Jinbo and the following CCA-SCC employees: “Lt. STG

Investigator” Kalum Kalani, Hearings Officer K. Estrada, Warden Todd Thomas, Chief of

Security M. Lopez, and Assistant Chief of Security S. Meiner.

Case 2:09-cv-01157-DGC Document 10 Filed 08/31/09 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 -

In both counts, Plaintiff alleges violations of his right to due process. He claims:

Defendant Kalani charged Plaintiff with a disciplinary violation for displaying security threat

group activity after his arrival at CCA-SCC; after a hearing, Defendant Estrada found

Plaintiff guilty, “with no evidence whatsoever,” of failing to follow prison rules; and

Defendant Thomas affirmed the finding of guilt. As a result of Plaintiff’s disciplinary

violation, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Lopez and Meiner determined Plaintiff should be

placed in the prison’s Special Housing Incentive Program (SHIP) and that Defendant Thomas

approved the placement. Plaintiff contends that placement in SHIP imposes an atypical and

significant hardship on him in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. He states that,

in SHIP, he is placed in lockdown for eighteen months and, during that time, he is unable to

participate in any previously recommended prison programming; he is deprived of church

services, educational and vocational training, prison worklines, and library access; and his

phone calls, recreation time, commissary choices, and personal property are severely limited.

Plaintiff also claims that he complained to Defendant Jinbo, who “has the authority to correct

wrongs done by [the other Defendants]” but “did nothing to correct [Plaintiff’s] prison

misconduct [finding] and placement in SHIP.”

In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary

damages, and his costs of suit.

III. Discussion

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated a claim in Count One against Defendants

Estrada and Thomas and in Count Two against Defendants Lopez, Meiner, and Thomas. The

Court will require Defendants Estrada, Thomas, Lopez, and Meiner to answer the Complaint.

The Court will dismiss Defendant Kalani because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim

against him. See Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 949, 951 (2d Cir. 1986) (an “inmate has no

constitutionally guaranteed immunity from being falsely or wrongly accused of conduct

which may result in the deprivation of a protected liberty interest. The plaintiff, as all other

prison inmates, has the right not to be deprived of a protected liberty interest without due

process of law.”). Plaintiff has also failed to state a claim against Defendant Jinbo. See

Case 2:09-cv-01157-DGC Document 10 Filed 08/31/09 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 -

Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999) (defendants did not commit

constitutional violations when they denied administrative grievances, failed to intervene on

plaintiff’s behalf, and failed to remedy allegedly unconstitutional behavior).

IV. Warnings

A. 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.

B. 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.

C. 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,

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) Defendants Kalani and Jinbo are dismissed without prejudice.

(2) Defendants Estrada, Thomas, Lopez, and Meiner must answer the Complaint.

(3) 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 Estrada, Thomas, Lopez, and Meiner.

Case 2:09-cv-01157-DGC Document 10 Filed 08/31/09 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 -

(4) Plaintiff must complete and return the 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.

(5) 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).

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

and a copy of this Order for future use.

(7) 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

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

Marshal must immediately file requests for waivers that were returned as undeliverable and

waivers of service of the summons. If a waiver of service of summons 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.

Case 2:09-cv-01157-DGC Document 10 Filed 08/31/09 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 -

(8) 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.

(9) 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.

(10) 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.

(11) 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 31st day of August, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01157-DGC Document 10 Filed 08/31/09 Page 6 of 6