Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08114/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08114-1/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

TERMPSREF 28

WO KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William W. Castle, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Eurofresh, Inc., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-8114-PCT-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff William W. Castle, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexWinslow, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and, on August

3, 2009, paid the filing fee. The Court will order Defendants to answer the Complaint.

Plaintiff has also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #5) and

Motion for Extension of Time to File an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc.

#7). Because Plaintiff has paid the filing fee, the Court will deny these Motions as moot.

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

Case 3:09-cv-08114-JWS Document 11 Filed 09/21/09 Page 1 of 6
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 -

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.

III. Complaint

Plaintiff names the following Defendants in the Complaint: Eurofresh Farms, Inc.;

former Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) Director Dora B. Schriro; acting ADOC

Director Charles L. Ryan; State of Arizona; and the Arizona Department of Corrections.

Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of injuries he sustained in 1996 while serving in the military,

he has a permanent disability that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

Plaintiff alleges that because of his disability, he was denied participation in the Arizona

Correctional Industries (ACI) program. 

Plaintiff raises five grounds for relief in the Complaint:

Case 3:09-cv-08114-JWS Document 11 Filed 09/21/09 Page 2 of 6
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 -

(1) Defendants Schriro, Arizona Department of Corrections, and Eurofresh

violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when they denied Plaintiff

reasonable accommodation for his disability;

(2) Defendants Schriro, Ryan, ADOC, and the State of Arizona violated the ADA

when they denied Plaintiff access to the ACI program;

(3) Defendants’ actions violated § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;

(4) Defendants’ actions violated the Arizona Civil Rights Act; and 

(5) Defendant Eurofresh violated its contract with the state Defendants, of which

Plaintiff is a third-party beneficiary, by failing to comply with the ADA.

Plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive relief. Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s

allegations adequately state a claim and the Court will require Defendants to answer the

Complaint. 

IV. Warnings

A. 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.

B. 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.

C. 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,

Case 3:09-cv-08114-JWS Document 11 Filed 09/21/09 Page 3 of 6
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 -

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 July 30, 2009 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #5)

is denied as moot. 

(2) August 5, 2009 Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. #7) is denied as moot.

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

Complaint (Doc. #1), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for

Defendants Eurofresh Inc., Arizona Department of Corrections, Schriro, Ryan, and State of

Arizona.

(4) 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.

(5) 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).

(6) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the Complaint,

and a copy of this Order for future use.

(7) 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; Rule 4(h) and Rule 4(j)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

and Rule 4.1(c) of the Arizona 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:

Case 3:09-cv-08114-JWS Document 11 Filed 09/21/09 Page 4 of 6
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 -

(a) personally serve copies of the Summons, Complaint, and this Order upon

Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2), Rule 4(h)(1), or Rule 4(j)(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.

(8) 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.

(9) 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.

(10) 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 3:09-cv-08114-JWS Document 11 Filed 09/21/09 Page 5 of 6
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 -

(11) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan 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 21st day of September, 2009.

Case 3:09-cv-08114-JWS Document 11 Filed 09/21/09 Page 6 of 6