Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01418/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01418-1/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

1

 Plaintiff is challenging his previous confinement in the Maricopa County Durango Jail in

Phoenix, Arizona. Plaintiff has previously been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See

Doc. # 5. 

WO JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John P. Barragan, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1418-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff John P. Barragan, confined in the CCA Diamondback Correctional Facility

in Watonga, Oklahoma,1

 has filed an amended pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. # 8), in compliance with this Court's January 10, 2006 Order. The Court

will dismiss the action.

I. 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 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). However, leave to amend need not be given if a complaint as

amended is subject to dismissal. Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538

Case 2:05-cv-01418-MHM--DKD Document 9 Filed 08/08/06 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 -

(9th Cir. 1989). The Court's discretion to deny or grant leave to amend is particularly broad

where Plaintiff has previously been permitted to amend his complaint. See SissetonWahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996). Failure to cure

deficiencies by previous amendments is one of the factors to be considered in deciding

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

II. Complaint

In Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff presents nine claims for relief in

which he alleges: (1) he has been denied due process when he did not see a magistrate judge

for 20 days after he was arrested; (2) there are unsanitary conditions in the jail; (3) the jail

is overcrowded; (4) denial of medical care; (5) there is an inadequate telephone system; (6)

the jail is overcrowded; (7) the jail is unsanitary; (8) he did not receive adequate recreation;

and (9) the meals are inadequate. Plaintiff names as Defendants: (1) Maricopa County; (2)

the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office; (3) Sheriff Joseph Arpaio; and (4) 100 unnamed

detention officers. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, contempt sanctions, immediate

compliance with established law, and other general and equitable relief. 

III. Failure to State a Claim

A. Improper Defendants

Maricopa County is not a proper Defendant. A municipality may not be held liable

unless its policy or custom caused the constitutional injury. See Leatherman v. Tarrant

County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 166 (1993); Monell v.

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Thus, a municipality may not be

sued solely because an injury was inflicted by one of its employees or agents. Long v.

County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). Rather, the municipality is

liable only when the execution of its policy or custom inflicts the constitutional injury. Id.;

Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 868 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, a § 1983 claim

against a municipal defendant “cannot succeed as a matter of law” unless the plaintiff: (1)

contends that the municipal defendant maintains a policy or custom pertinent to the plaintiff’s

alleged injury; and (2) explains how such policy or custom caused the plaintiff’s injury.

Case 2:05-cv-01418-MHM--DKD Document 9 Filed 08/08/06 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 -

Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1080 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal of a municipal

defendant pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6)), pet. for cert. filed, No. 05-1283, 74 U.S.L.W.

3587 (April 4, 2006). Plaintiff has not alleged that a policy or custom promulgated by

Maricopa County is the cause of his injuries. Accordingly, Maricopa County will be

dismissed as an improper Defendant.

Similarly, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not a proper Defendant. In

Arizona, the responsibility of operating jails and caring for prisoners is placed by law upon

the sheriff. See A.R.S. § 11-441(A)(5); A.R.S. § 31-101. A sheriff’s office is simply an

administrative creation of the county sheriff to allow him to carry out his statutory duties, and

not a “person” amenable to suit pursuant to § 1983. Accordingly, the Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Office will be dismissed from this action as an improper Defendant. 

B. Failure to Link Defendant Arpaio to Constitutional Violations

As stated previously, to state a viable constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a

Plaintiff must demonstrate an affirmative link between the alleged injury and the conduct of

an individual Defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).

To state a claim against a state official, the civil rights complainant must allege that

the official personally participated in the constitutional deprivation, or that a state

supervisory official was aware of the widespread abuses and with deliberate indifference to

the inmate's constitutional rights failed to take action to prevent further misconduct. King v.

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1987); See also Monell v. New York City Department

of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Williams v. Cash, 836 F.2d 1318, 1320 (11th

Cir. 1988).

There is no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a theory of respondeatsuperior,

and therefore, a defendant’s position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated a

plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not impose liability. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691; West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 54 n.12 (1988); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723

F.2d 675, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1984).

Although Plaintiff names Joseph M. Arpaio as a Defendant, he has not made any

Case 2:05-cv-01418-MHM--DKD Document 9 Filed 08/08/06 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 -

allegations against him individually in the body of the Complaint. Plaintiff does not allege

that Defendant Arpaio personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional

rights, nor does he allege that Defendant was aware of widespread abuses and failed to act.

Accordingly, Defendant Arpaio is not a proper Defendant and will be dismissed from this

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted.

Plaintiff additionally names 100 unnamed detention officers. Generally, the use of

anonymous type appellations to identify defendants is not favored. Rule 10(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure requires the plaintiff to include the names of the parties in the

action. As a practical matter, it is impossible in most instances for the United States Marshal

or his designee to serve a summons and complaint or amended complaint upon an

anonymous defendant. Here, because Plaintiff has not linked these unknown Defendants to

any of his claims, they too will be dismissed from this action.

Because Plaintiff has been specifically warned of the failure to link constitutional

claims to Defendants and has failed to correct the deficiencies found in his original

Complaint, this action will be dismissed without leave to amend. Moore, 885 F.2d at 538.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) The Amended Complaint (Doc. # 8) and this action are DISMISSED for

failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the Clerk of Court

must enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action.

(2) Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File an Amended Complaint (Doc.

# 7) is DENIED as moot.

(3) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket indicating that the

dismissal for failure to state a claim is under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DATED this 7th day of August, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01418-MHM--DKD Document 9 Filed 08/08/06 Page 4 of 4