Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00510/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00510-0/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 KM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas M. James, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-510-PHX-GMS (JRI)

ORDER

Plaintiff Thomas M. James, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison-Kingman,

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 action.

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 2:10-cv-00510-GMS Document 8 Filed 03/31/10 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 -

§ 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, without leave to amend because the defects cannot be corrected.

/ / /

Case 2:10-cv-00510-GMS Document 8 Filed 03/31/10 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 -

III. Complaint

Plaintiff names Arizona Department of Corrections Director Charles L. Ryan and “All

Others Acting Concert” as Defendants to the Complaint.

Plaintiff raises two grounds for relief:

(1) Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights are violated by Defendant Ryan’s policy of

banning adult sexually explicit publications as well as nudity in publications

and photos; and 

(2) The same policy violates Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process and

equal protection rights.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim

“[A] prison inmate retains those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with

his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections

system.” Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974); see also Clement v. California

Department of Corrections, 364 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). A regulation

that impinges on First Amendment rights “is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate

penological interests.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 79 (1987); see also Beard v. Banks,

548 F.3d 521, 528 (2006). Legitimate penological interests include “the preservation of

internal order and discipline, the maintenance of institutional security against escape or

unauthorized entry, and the rehabilitation of the prisoners.” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.

396, 412 (1974). In light of concerns about preventing the sexual harassment of prison

guards and other inmates, prison officials may prohibit receipt of sexually explicit materials.

See Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969,976 (9th Cir. 2001); Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d

348, 357 (9th Cir. 1999); Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1060 (9th Cir. 199).

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim because the Ninth Circuit has already

determined that a ban on sexually explicit materials in prisons does not violate the First

Amendment. Further, Plaintiff offers nothing more than a conclusory allegation that the

Case 2:10-cv-00510-GMS Document 8 Filed 03/31/10 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 -

policy violates his due process and equal protection rights; Plaintiff provides no facts in

support of this claim. The Court will dismiss the Complaint and this action.

V. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary

Injunction in which he requests an order prohibiting Defendant Ryan from implementing his

policy prohibiting the receipt of sexually explicit material by inmates. Because the Court

will dismiss the action, the Court will deny the Motion as moot. 

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 pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

(4) 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).

(5) Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in Preliminary Injunction

(Doc. #5) is denied.

DATED this 31st day of March, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00510-GMS Document 8 Filed 03/31/10 Page 4 of 4