Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_19-cv-08071/USCOURTS-azd-3_19-cv-08071-0/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

WO MH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Schlienz,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 19-08071-PCT-MTL (CDB)

ORDER

On March 11, 2019, Plaintiff James Schlienz, who is confined in the Arizona State 

Prison Complex-Winslow, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. In a March 15, 2019 Order, the Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the 

required filing and administrative fees or file an in forma pauperis application. On March 

25, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a May 30, 2019

Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because 

Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended 

complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 

On July 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On August 14, 2019 , 

he filed a Second Amended Complaint. On October 2, 2019, he filed a Motion to Waive 

Filing Fees. In an October 8, 2019 Order, the Court dismissed the Second Amended 

Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim and denied the Motion to Waive 

Case 3:19-cv-08071-MTL--CDB Document 20 Filed 04/01/20 Page 1 of 5
- 2 -

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

Filing Fees. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a third amended complaint that cured 

the deficiencies identified in the Order.

After receiving an extension of time on December 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Third 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 18) on January 13, 2020. The Court will dismiss the Third 

Amended Complaint and this action.

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 -

defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(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 679. 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 681.

. . . .

Case 3:19-cv-08071-MTL--CDB Document 20 Filed 04/01/20 Page 2 of 5
- 3 -

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

But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 

must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 

(9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id.(quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 

U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 

II. Third Amended Complaint

In his Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a single count, alleging that his 

Eighth Amendment rights were violated. He names Arizona Department of Corrections 

Interim Division Director of Health Services Richard Pratt as the sole Defendant and seeks 

damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff alleges that in 2019, Registered Nurse Terry used too much pressure while 

cleaning Plaintiff’s ears and “blew [his] ear drum,” resulting in pain, suffering, and a loss 

of hearing that has required him to use a hearing aid.1 Following the procedure, Terry 

allegedly stated, “I was never trained to do this procedure, and I have only done it on two 

other occasions.” According to Plaintiff, Defendant Pratt is responsible for the hiring and 

proper training of medical staff. 

III. Failure to State a Claim

To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 

(2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 

(4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 

2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 

1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). 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).

. . . .

1 Although Plaintiff does not identify the precise date on which this incident 

occurred, he stated in his Second Amended Complaint that it occurred on February 15, 

2019. 

Case 3:19-cv-08071-MTL--CDB Document 20 Filed 04/01/20 Page 3 of 5
- 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

To state a claim for failure to train or failure to supervise, a plaintiff must allege 

facts to support that the alleged failure amounted to deliberate indifference. Canell v. 

Lightner, 143 F.3d 1210, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998). A plaintiff must allege facts to support that 

not only was particular training or supervision inadequate, but also that such inadequacy 

was the result of “a ‘deliberate’ or ‘conscious’ choice” on the part of the defendant. Id. at 

1213-14; see Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 905 (9th Cir. 2002) (a plaintiff must allege 

facts to support that “in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or empl oyees, the 

need for more or different training is [so] obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in 

violations of constitutional rights, that the policy[]makers . . . can reasonably be said to 

have been deliberately indifferent to the need.” (quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 489 

U.S. 378, 390 (1989))). A plaintiff must also show a “sufficient causal connection between 

the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” Redman v. County of 

San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). 

Here, Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege that Terry’s conduct was the result of 

deliberately indifferent conduct on the part of Defendant Pratt. Although Pratt was 

allegedly “responsible for the hiring and training of medical staff,” there are no allegations 

to suggest that he knew Terry was performing the ear-cleaning procedure in question or 

had any reason to be aware of Terry’s deficiencies in this area. Plaintiff does not allege, 

for example, that Terry had injured other inmates and that those inmates had filed 

grievances reviewable by Defendant Pratt. In the absence of any facts showing that Terry’s

purported training deficiencies were obvious or otherwise known to Pratt, Plaintiff cannot 

state a claim for relief against this Defendant for failure to train. See Ivey v. Bd. of Regents 

of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (conclusory and vague allegations 

will not support a cause of action). Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against 

Pratt.

IV. Dismissal Without Leave to Amend

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

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

Case 3:19-cv-08071-MTL--CDB Document 20 Filed 04/01/20 Page 4 of 5
- 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

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 Third Amended Complaint without leave to amend.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 18) 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, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) 

and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), has considered whether an appeal 

of this decision would be taken in good faith and finds Plaintiff may appeal in forma 

pauperis.

Dated this 1st day of April, 2020.

Case 3:19-cv-08071-MTL--CDB Document 20 Filed 04/01/20 Page 5 of 5