Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01629/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01629-0/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

JDDL-K

WO KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Patrick Earl Young, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1629-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff Patrick Earl Young, who is confined in the Maricopa County Towers Jail, has

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

Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend.

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 not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The statutory

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. 

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.

Case 2:09-cv-01629-MHM Document 4 Filed 09/22/09 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

JDDL-K - 2 -

§ 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.

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 a complaint before dismissal of the

action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court

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

undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225,

231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to decide whether the court was

required to inform a 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.

Case 2:09-cv-01629-MHM Document 4 Filed 09/22/09 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

JDDL-K - 3 -

III. Complaint

Plaintiff sues Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Detention Officers B0086 and

Mannell B0797. Plaintiff raises two grounds for relief in which he alleges that the detention

officers used excessive force against him (Count I) and threatened his safety (Count II) when

they subjected him to verbal abuse and physical assault. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that

while returning from court, he and Defendant Mannell were engaged in a “verbal

altercation.” Defendant B0086 arrived on the scene and informed Plaintiff that Plaintiff was

refusing to obey a direct order. Plaintiff was placed in handcuffs and Defendant B0086

escorted Plaintiff out of the holding area. Plaintiff states that he then turned to ask a question

and Defendant B0086 slammed Plaintiff to the ground and beat Plaintiff with his hands,

knees, and elbows. Plaintiff claims that he suffered lacerations, abrasions, and bruises.

Plaintiff seeks money damages.

IV. Failure to State a Claim

A. Failure to Link Injuries with Defendant Arpaio

To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a specific

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

injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).

There is no respondeatsuperior liability under § 1983, and therefore, a defendant’s position

as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not

impose liability. Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658

(1978); Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 1992); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983

suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s

own individual actions, has violated the constitution.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948. 

Plaintiff has failed to make any allegations against Defendant Arpaio and has

therefore failed to state a claim against Defendant Arpaio.

B. Defendant Mannell

Plaintiff’s only allegations against Defendant Mannell are that Defendant Mannell

Case 2:09-cv-01629-MHM Document 4 Filed 09/22/09 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

JDDL-K - 4 -

verbally abused him. “‘Verbal harassment or abuse . . . is not sufficient to state a

constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.’” Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136,

139 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Collins v. Cundy, 603 F.2d 825 (10th Cir. 1979)). Accordingly,

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendant Mannell.

C. Excessive Force

The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause protects pretrial detainees from

excessive force that amounts to punishment. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175,

1197 (9th Cir. 2002). “[T]he Fourth Amendment sets ‘the applicable constitutional

limitations’ for considering claims of excessive force during pretrial detention.” Id. (quoting

Pierce v. Multnomah County, 76 F.3d 1032, 1043 (9th Cir. 1996)).

The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the use of reasonable force. Tatum v. City

and County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir. 2006). Whether the force was

excessive depends on “whether the officers’ actions [were] ‘objectively reasonable’ in light

of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or

motivation.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). See also Tatum, 441 F.3d at

1095; Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 415 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court must balance

the nature and quality of the intrusion against the countervailing governmental interests.

Lolli, 351 F.3d at 415. Moreover, 

[t]he “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be

judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,

rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. . . . . “Not every

push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the

peace of a judge’s chambers,” violates the Fourth Amendment.

The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the

fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second

judgments-in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly

evolving-about the amount of force that is necessary in a

particular situation.

Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-97 (citation omitted).

In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that he and Defendant Mannell had been engaged in a

“verbal altercation,” that Defendant B0086 had informed him that he was refusing to obey

a direct order, and that Plaintiff had turned back toward Defendant B0086 immediately

Case 2:09-cv-01629-MHM Document 4 Filed 09/22/09 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

JDDL-K - 5 -

before the incident in question. Although Plaintiff may believe that the force used by

Defendant B0086 was unnecessary, Plaintiff’s facts to not demonstrate that the use of force

was unreasonable in the circumstances described. Plaintiff has therefore failed to state an

excessive force claim.

V. 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. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first

amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail

Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails

to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the amended complaint and dismiss this

action without further notice to Plaintiff.

In any amended complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements telling the

Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) name of the Defendant

who violated the right; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to do; (4) how the action

or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional right;

and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of that Defendant’s conduct. Rizzo,

423 U.S. at 371-72, 377.

Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First

Amended Complaint.” The first 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. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 

A first 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,

1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat an original complaint as

nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the original

complaint is waived if it is not raised in a first amended complaint. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d

565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

Case 2:09-cv-01629-MHM Document 4 Filed 09/22/09 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

JDDL-K - 6 -

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.

C. Copies

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 “Strike”

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 will count as a “strike” under the “3-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Under the 3-strikes provision, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil

judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior

occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a

court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious,

or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

E. 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, 963 F.2d at

Case 2:09-cv-01629-MHM Document 4 Filed 09/22/09 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

JDDL-K - 7 -

1260-61 (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 (Doc. #3) is granted.

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

Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is not assessed an initial partial filing fee.

(3) The Complaint (Doc. #1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has

30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended complaint in compliance with

this Order. 

(4) If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of

Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice

that states that the dismissal counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

(5) The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff a court-approved form for filing a civil

rights complaint by a prisoner.

DATED this 21st day of September, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01629-MHM Document 4 Filed 09/22/09 Page 7 of 7