Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01032/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01032-1/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

TERMPSREF

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

De’Andre Eugene Childers, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1032-PHX-MHM (MEA)

ORDER

Plaintiff De’Andre Eugene Childers, who is confined in the Towers Jail in Phoenix,

Arizona, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc.# 1, 5.) The Court will order Defendant

Arpaio to answer Count I of the Complaint and will dismiss the remaining claim 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 assess an initial partial filing fee of $18.34. The remainder of the 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 separate

Order requiring the appropriate government agency to collect and forward the fees according

to the statutory formula. 

Case 2:09-cv-01032-MHM Document 6 Filed 06/29/09 Page 1 of 7
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 -

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). 

III. Complaint

Plaintiff alleges two counts in his Complaint for violation of his rights under the Fifth,

Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff sues Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio.

He seeks compensatory relief. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts supporting that (1) the

conduct about which he complains was committed by a person acting under the color of state

law and (2) the conduct deprived him of a federal constitutional or statutory right. Wood v.

Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he

suffered a specific injury as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must

allege an affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v.

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).

In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions. A

pretrial detainee’s claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement arises from the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment while a convicted inmate’s claims for

unconstitutional conditions arises from the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and

unusual punishment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 (1979); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d

1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). Nevertheless, the same standards are applied. See Frost, 152

F.3d at 1128. To state a claim for unconstitutional conditions, a plaintiff must allege an

objectively “sufficiently serious” deprivation that results in the denial of “the minimal

civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Allen

Case 2:09-cv-01032-MHM Document 6 Filed 06/29/09 Page 2 of 7
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 -

v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 1994); Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir.

2000); see Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2002). These

are “deprivations of essential food, medical care, or sanitation” or “other conditions

intolerable for prison confinement.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348 (1981). “‘The

circumstances, nature, and duration of a deprivation of [] necessities must be considered in

determining whether a constitutional violation has occurred.’” Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d

1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731). Thus, whether conditions

of confinement rise to the level of a constitutional violation may depend, in part, on the

duration of an inmate’s exposure to those conditions. Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1089,

1091 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686-87 (1978)). A plaintiff must

also allege facts to support that a defendant had a “sufficiently culpable state of mind,” i.e.,

that the official acted with deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety. Id. at 837. In

defining “deliberate indifference” in the jail context, the Supreme Court has imposed a

subjective test: “the official must both be aware of the facts from which the inference could

be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”

Id. A plaintiff must also allege how he was injured by the alleged unconstitutional

conditions. See, e.g., Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996) (doctrine of standing

requires that claimant have suffered or will imminently suffer actual harm); Caswell v.

Calderon, 363 F.3d 832, 836 (9th Cir. 2004) (case-or-controversy requirement means that

plaintiff must have an actual or threatened injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be

redressed by a favorable judicial decision). 

While Plaintiff alleges certain conditions that may rise to the level of

unconstitutionality, he fails to allege facts to connect Sheriff Arpaio to those conditions. He

merely vaguely asserts that Arpaio has failed to renovate allegedly condemned buildings. 

“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). For an individual to be liable in his official capacity, a plaintiff

must allege that the official acted as a result of a policy, practice, or custom. See Cortez v.

Case 2:09-cv-01032-MHM Document 6 Filed 06/29/09 Page 3 of 7
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 -

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). 

Plaintiff fails to allege facts to support that Arpaio instituted a policy, practice or

custom resulting in the allegedly unconstitutional conditions. He also fails to allege facts to

support that Arpaio knew that Plaintiff was subjected to the allegedly unconstitutional

conditions but failed to intervene. Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim against Arpaio for

unconstitutional conditions in Count II. 

V. Claim for Which an Answer Will be Required

In Count I, Plaintiff claims the Defendant sets policy and deliberately instructs his

staff to feed inmates only two meals per day and that he deliberately directs that too few

calories be provided in the meals so that detainees are hungry. Plaintiff further contends that

while Arpaio allows detainees with money to possess commissary items in their cells, he will

not allow detainees without funds for commissary to save portions of the jail provided meals

for consumption later in the day. Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations in Count I states

a claim. The Court will require Defendant Arpaio to respond to that claim.

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.

Case 2:09-cv-01032-MHM Document 6 Filed 06/29/09 Page 4 of 7
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 -

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,

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 is granted. (Doc.# 5.)

(2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency,

Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $18.34.

(3) Count II is dismissed without prejudice.

(4) Defendant Arpaio must answer Count I. 

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

Complaint, this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for Defendant

Arpaio. (Doc. #1)

(6) 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.

(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).

Case 2:09-cv-01032-MHM Document 6 Filed 06/29/09 Page 5 of 7
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) 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

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.

(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) Defendant 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 2:09-cv-01032-MHM Document 6 Filed 06/29/09 Page 6 of 7
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 -

(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 26th day of June, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01032-MHM Document 6 Filed 06/29/09 Page 7 of 7