Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01437/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01437-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

 Many inmates apparently believe that they will receive an immediate payout from a fund

established in Hart v. Hill, No. CV 77-0479-PHX-EHC (MS) (D. Ariz.). No such fund exists. The

inmates in Hart asked for injunctive relief and not monetary damages. The Court at this time

expresses no opinion on whether Plaintiff’s lawsuit may result in an award of damages. 

JDDL-K

WO BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph Irwin, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

United States District Court Clerk, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1437-PHX-NVW (VAM)

ORDER

Plaintiff Joseph Irwin, formally confined at the Maricopa County Durango Jail in

Phoenix, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

 Plaintiff

has paid the filing fees. The Court will dismiss the action with leave to amend.

A. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against

a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if 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). 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 the

Case 2:05-cv-01437-NVW--VAM Document 6 Filed 11/04/05 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

JDDL-K - 2 -

complaint before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th

Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court is required to grant leave to amend “if a complaint can

possibly be saved,” but not if the Complaint “lacks merit entirely.” Id. at 1129. A court

therefore should grant leave to amend if the pleading could be cured by the allegation of

other facts, or if it appears at all possible that the defect can be corrected. Id. at 1130. The

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

“would undermine the district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 124

S. Ct. 2441, 2446 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to decide whether

court was required to inform litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed

for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend because the complaint may possibly be saved

by amendment.

B. Complaint.

In the caption, Plaintiff lists the United States District Court Clerk as a Defendant.

Plaintiff lists his own name as the “[n]ame of the first Defendant.” Plaintiff alleges that,

while he was incarcerated in Maricopa County Durango Jail, his constitutional rights were

violated because he did not receive appropriate medical treatment. In Count I, Plaintiff notes

that he suffers from back problems and asthma. Plaintiff asserts that his medical conditions

worsened while imprisoned because he did not receive medical treatment despite placing two

“medical tank orders.” In Count II, Plaintiff asserts that he put in a number of “medical tank

orders” requesting breathing treatments for his asthma, but did not receive the treatments.

In Count III, Plaintiff alleges that because there was asbestos in the air system, his asthma

worsened. Plaintiff seeks monetary and other relief. 

The United States District Court Clerk, while acting in that capacity, is entitled to

absolute immunity. See Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1244 (9th Cir. 1996).

Additionally, Plaintiff obviously did not intend to sue himself. 

To state a valid constitutional claim, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered specific

injury as a result of the specific conduct of a defendant, and show an affirmative link between

the injury and the conduct of the defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377

Case 2:05-cv-01437-NVW--VAM Document 6 Filed 11/04/05 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

JDDL-K - 3 -

(1976). For a person to liable in his official capacity, Plaintiff must allege that he acted as

a result of a policy, practice, or custom. See Cortez v. County of Los Angeles, 294 F.3d

1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2001). A supervisor, in his individual capacity, “is only liable for

constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the

violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880

F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that

show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.”

Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). 

The Plaintiff was apparently confused about who to sue name as a Defendant.

However, the United States District Court Clerk and the Plaintiff himself are not proper

Defendants. Because Plaintiff does not list any other Defendant, he will be provided the

opportunity to amend his Complaint in an attempt to set forth a cause of action against a

proper Defendant.

C. Leave to Amend.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff may amend his Complaint to cure the

deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will be directed to provide Plaintiff with a

Court-approved form for filing a civil rights complaint. Plaintiff is advised that the amended

complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its entirety on the court-approved form and may

not incorporate any part of the original Complaint by reference. Any amended complaint

submitted by Plaintiff should be clearly designated as such on the face of the document. 

Plaintiff is also reminded that in an Amended Complaint, he may only include one

claim per count. The “one claim per count” rule is set forth in the form Complaint and

accompanying instructions, and is a requirement imposed by the local rules of this Court.

See LRCiv 3.4(a) (complaint must be in accordance with the instructions provided with the

form). 

An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542,

Case 2:05-cv-01437-NVW--VAM Document 6 Filed 11/04/05 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

JDDL-K - 4 -

1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the original pleading is treated as nonexistent.

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Thus, causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are

not alleged in an amended complaint are waived. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.

1987).

D. Address Changes.

In the notice of assignment issued in this action (Doc. #2), Plaintiff was advised he

must file a notice of change of address if his address changes. Plaintiff is again reminded

that at all times during the pendency of this action, Plaintiff shall immediately advise the

Court of any change of address and its effective date. Such notice shall be captioned

“NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.” Plaintiff shall serve a copy of the Notice of

Change of Address on all opposing parties. The notice shall contain only information

pertaining to the change of address and its effective date, and shall not include a motion for

other relief. Failure to timely file a notice of change of address may result in the dismissal

of the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

E. Warning of Possible Dismissal.

Plaintiff should take note that if he fails to timely comply with every provision of this

Order, this action will be dismissed without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-

61(district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any order of the Court).

Moreover, because the Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a claim, if Plaintiff

fails to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in this Order, the

dismissal of this action will count as a “strike” under the “three strikes” provision of the

Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

(1) The Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff shall have 30

days from the date this Order is filed to file an Amended Complaint in compliance with this

Order.

Case 2:05-cv-01437-NVW--VAM Document 6 Filed 11/04/05 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

JDDL-K - 5 -

(2) The Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with

prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint

within thirty (30) days of the date this Order is filed. Upon entry of judgment, the Clerk shall

make an entry on the docket in this matter indicating that the dismissal of this action falls

within the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

(3) Aside from the two copies of the petition or amended petition that must be

submitted pursuant to LRCiv 3.5(a), a clear, legible copy of every pleading or other

document filed shall accompany each original pleading or other document filed with the

Clerk for use by the District Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom the case is assigned. See

LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the pleading or document

being stricken without further notice to Plaintiff.

(4) The Clerk of Court is directed to provide to Plaintiff a current court-approved

form for filing a civil rights complaint by a prisoner.

DATED this 3rd day of November, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01437-NVW--VAM Document 6 Filed 11/04/05 Page 5 of 5