Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00952/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00952-1/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

Amante Gary Evans, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-952-PHX-GMS (JRI)

ORDER

On April 29, 2010, Plaintiff Amante Gary Evans, who is confined in the Maricopa

County Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a May 11, 2010 Order, the

Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint for failure to comply

with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file

an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 

On June 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. In a June 15, 2010

Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state

a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended complaint that cured the

deficiencies identified in the Order.

On July 12, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 9). The Court

will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and this action.

. . . .

. . . .

Case 2:10-cv-00952-GMS--JRI Document 10 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 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

- 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. Second Amended Complaint

In his one-count Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Maricopa County Sheriff

Joe Arpaio. Plaintiff claims that his Fourth Amendment rights have been violated by

numerous searches of his person and cell and by the confiscation of his property. Plaintiff

claims that Defendant Arpaio has allowed him to be “constantly and wrongfully searched”

Case 2:10-cv-00952-GMS--JRI Document 10 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

and that he has “suffered psychological injuries, also causing [him] to have severe anxiety

and emotional distress.”

Plaintiff seeks money damages.

III. Failure to State a Claim

With respect to cell searches, the Supreme Court has determined that “[a] right of

privacy in traditional Fourth Amendment terms is fundamentally incompatible with the close

and continual surveillance of inmates and their cells required to ensure institutional security

and internal order.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 527-28 (1979). Furthermore, any

restriction on Plaintiff's privacy interests is justified to the extent that it is “reasonably related

to legitimate penological interests.” See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). The

investigation and prevention of illegal inmate activity, including the prevention of contraband

and circulation of threats, is a legitimate penological objective. See Thornburgh v. Abbott,

409 U.S. 401, 411-12 (1989). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims regarding searches of his cell

fail to state a claim.

With respect to body and strip searches, strip searches generally do not violate the

Fourth Amendment rights of prisoners. See Michenfelder v. Summer, 860 F.2d 328, 332-33

(9th Cir. 1988). Strip searches that are “excessive, vindictive, harassing, or unrelated to any

legitimate penological interest,” may be unconstitutional. Id. at 332. Further, routine visual

body cavity searches do violate prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights. See Bell, 441 U.S. at

558; Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 700 (9th Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff’s allegations regarding searches of his person are extremely vague. Plaintiff

describes the searches as frequent and alleges that nothing dangerous has ever been found

on his person. However, Plaintiff does not allege facts showing that searches were

vindictive, harassing, or unrelated to any legitimate penological interest. 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. Board of Regents of the

University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Plaintiff has therefore also failed

to state a claim with respect to body and strip searches.

Case 2:10-cv-00952-GMS--JRI Document 10 Filed 08/02/10 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

IV. Dismissal without Leave to Amend

Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim in his Second Amended Complaint, the

Court will dismiss his Second Amended Complaint. “Leave to amend need not be given if

a complaint, as amended, is subject to dismissal.” Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc.,

885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is

particularly broad where Plaintiff has previously been permitted to amend his complaint.

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996). Repeated

failure to cure deficiencies is one of the factors to be considered in deciding whether justice

requires granting leave to amend. Moore, 885 F.2d at 538. 

Plaintiff has made three efforts at crafting a viable complaint and appears unable to

do so despite specific instructions from the Court. The Court finds that further opportunities

to amend would be futile. Therefore, the Court, in its discretion, will dismiss Plaintiff’s

Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 9) and this action are dismissed

for failure to state a claim, 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).

(3) The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of this

decision would not be taken in good faith.

DATED this 2nd day of August, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00952-GMS--JRI Document 10 Filed 08/02/10 Page 4 of 4