Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01250/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01250-1/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 MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph A. Trenton, et al., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1250-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

I. Background

On July 3, 2008, Plaintiff Joseph A. Trenton, who is confined in the Arizona State

Prison Complex-Tucson In Tucson, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint, on behalf

of himself and other inmates, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff did not pay the $350.00

civil action filing fee or file a proper Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 

In a July 14, 2008 Order, the Court dismissed all of the plaintiffs other than Plaintiff

Trenton, noted that Plaintiff Trenton had neither paid the filing fee or filed an Application

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and dismissed the Complaint, without prejudice, because

Plaintiff Trenton had not filed on the court-approved form. The Court gave Plaintiff Trenton

30 days to pay the filing fee or file an Application to Proceed and 30 days to file an amended

complaint on the court-approved form.

Case 2:08-cv-01250-MHM Document 8 Filed 09/15/08 Page 1 of 9
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

The Court made this same statement in its July 14, 2008 Order. Plaintiff Trenton

apparently disregarded it, as did Kenneth Schwan and Bryan Baker, both of whom where

dismissed from the original complaint.

TERMPSREF - 2 -

On August 1, 2008, Plaintiff Trenton and others filed a First Amended Complaint

(Doc. #4) and a “Motion for Certification as a Class-Action; and Motion for Appointment

of Legal Counsel” (Doc. #5). Plaintiff Trenton also filed a Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (Doc. #6).

II. Dismissal of Additional Plaintiffs

In addition to Plaintiff Trenton, the following are listed as Plaintiffs on the First

Amended Complaint: Kenneth Schwan, Bryan Baker, Troy J. Diets, Little Baca, Bobby R.

Thomas, Danny Strahan, and Shawn M. Atkinson.

First, Plaintiff Trenton has no authority to bring this action on behalf of the other

plaintiffs. “[C]onstitutional claims are personal and cannot be asserted vicariously.” Johns

v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997). A party is permitted to plead and

conduct his or her case “personally or by counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1654. A non-lawyer may

appear on his own behalf in his own case but “has no authority to appear as an attorney for

others than himself.” Johns, 114 F.3d at 876 (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United

States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987)). 

Second, all prisoners who file civil actions must pay the full amount of the filing fee

either at the time the lawsuit is filed or, if granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

incrementally. See Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1)). None of the plaintiffs has paid the filing fee and only Plaintiff Trenton has

filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

Third, pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4(a), complaints must be signed.

Shawn M. Atkinson did not sign the First Amended Complaint.

All of the Plaintiffs other than Plaintiff Trenton will be dismissed without prejudice.

Each dismissed Plaintiff may file an individual lawsuit on his own behalf.1

Case 2:08-cv-01250-MHM Document 8 Filed 09/15/08 Page 2 of 9
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 -

III. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

Plaintiff Trenton’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. 

IV. 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). 

V. First Amended Complaint

In his one-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues the following Defendants:

Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) Director Dora B. Schriro, Regional Director

Bennie H. Rollins, Northern Regions Operations Director L. Bartos; Protective Segregation

Committee Board Members Herb Hailey and Maria Madrid; and unidentified Protective

Segregation Committee Board Members.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition

against cruel and unusual punishment because they implement, oversee, and follow a

protective segregation review policy that “refuse[s protective segregation] placement no

matter what.” Plaintiff states that he sought protective segregation placement “due to an

objectively, sufficiently serious risk of harm in the ADOC General Population,” that ADOC

officials recommended protective segregation placement, but the Protective Segregation

Board Members denied his requests and Defendants Rollins and Bartos denied his appeals.

Case 2:08-cv-01250-MHM Document 8 Filed 09/15/08 Page 3 of 9
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 -

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference by denying him

placement into protective segregation even after they were made aware of a sufficiently

serious risk of harm.

In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, his

attorneys’ fees and costs, and monetary damages.

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated a claim and the Court will require Defendants

to answer the First Amended Complaint.

The Court will not direct that service be made on the unidentified Protective

Segregation Committee Board Member Defendants at this time. The Court is unable to

identify these individuals, and, as a practical matter, it is virtually impossible for the United

States Marshal to serve a summons and complaint upon unknown persons. However, the

Court will not dismiss the claims against the unidentified Protective Segregation Committee

Board Member Defendants at this time. See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163

(9th Cir. 1999) (where identity of defendants is unknown prior to filing of complaint,

plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown

defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities or that the

complaint would be dismissed on other grounds).

 Plaintiff may use the discovery process to obtain the names of the unidentified

Protective Segregation Committee Board Member Defendants. If Plaintiff later discovers

the identities of the unidentified Protective Segregation Committee Board Member

Defendants, Plaintiff should amend his complaint to name them. Pursuant to Rule 15 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter

of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, a party may amend

the party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party.

VI. Motion for Certification and Appointment of Counsel

In his “Motion for Certification as a Class-action; and Motion for Appointment of

Legal Counsel,” Plaintiff seeks to have the Court certify this action as a class action, alleges

Case 2:08-cv-01250-MHM Document 8 Filed 09/15/08 Page 4 of 9
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 -

that this action meets the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

and seeks an appointment of counsel to represent the class. 

One prerequisite to maintaining a class action is that the class “representative parties

will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). It

follows that a class action may not be certified where the representative parties are without

counsel. See McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966) (non-lawyer had

no authority to appear as an attorney for other persons in a purported class action); C.E. Pope

Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir.1987) (while a non-attorney may

represent himself, he has no authority to appear as an attorney for others); Oxendine v.

Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (plain error to permit an inmate proceeding

pro se to represent fellow inmates in a class action). “This rule is an outgrowth not only of

the belief that a layman, untutored in the law, cannot ‘adequately represent’ the interests of

the members of the ‘class,’ but also out of the long-standing general prohibition against even

attorneys acting as both class representative and counsel for the class.” Huddleston v.

Duckworth, 97 F.R.D. 512, 514 (N.D. Ind. 1983). Accordingly, before deciding whether this

matter can proceed as a class action, the Court must first determine whether this is a case that

merits the appointment of counsel.

There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Ivey v.

Board of Regents of University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). In proceedings

in forma pauperis, the court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford

one. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is

required only when “exceptional circumstances” are present. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). A determination with respect to exceptional circumstances

requires an evaluation of the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of

Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issue involved.

Id. “Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching

a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Case 2:08-cv-01250-MHM Document 8 Filed 09/15/08 Page 5 of 9
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 -

Having considered both elements, it does not appear at this time that exceptional

circumstances are present that would require the appointment of counsel in this case.

Therefore, the Court will deny without prejudice the request for counsel.

In light of the denial of Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel, the Court

will deny Plaintiff's Motion because Plaintiff, notwithstanding his self-proclaimed status as

a “jailhouse lawyer,” will not be able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the

class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). 

VII. 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 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.

D. 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 2:08-cv-01250-MHM Document 8 Filed 09/15/08 Page 6 of 9
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 - 7 -

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) Plaintiffs Kenneth Schwan, Bryan Baker, Troy J. Diets, Little Baca, Bobby R.

Thomas, Danny Strahan, and Shawn M. Atkinson are dismissed without prejudice to each

of them filing an individual lawsuit on his own behalf. 

(2) Plaintiff Trenton has provided the names and ADOC inmate numbers of the

seven other Plaintiffs:

Kenneth Schwan, ADOC #105774 Bryan Baker, ADOC #186807

Troy J. Diets, ADOC #158651 Little Baca, ADOC #065723

Bobby R. Thomas, ADOC #063071 Danny Strahan, ADOC #068912

Shawn M. Atkinson, ADOC #205432

 As a courtesy to the dismissed Plaintiffs, the Clerk of Court must mail a copy of this

Order to them at the following address: 

ASPC-Eyman

 SMU I Unit

Inmate Name and ADOC #

P.O. Box 4000

Florence, AZ 85232

(3) Plaintiff Trenton’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #6) is

granted. 

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

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

fee.

(5) The “Motion For Certification as a Class-Action; and Motion for Appointment

of Legal Counsel” (Doc. #5) is denied.

(6) Defendants Schriro, Rollins, Bartos, Hailey, and Madrid must answer the First

Amended Complaint.

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

Amended Complaint (Doc. #4), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms

for Defendants Schriro, Rollins, Bartos, Hailey, and Madrid.

Case 2:08-cv-01250-MHM Document 8 Filed 09/15/08 Page 7 of 9
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 - 8 -

(8) 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.

(9) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or

complete service of the Summons and First Amended 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).

(10) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the First

Amended Complaint, and a copy of this Order for future use.

(11) 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. 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:

(a) personally serve copies of the Summons, First Amended Complaint, and

this Order upon Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(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, First Amended Complaint, or this Order and for preparing new process

receipt and return forms (USM-285), if required. Costs of service will be taxed against

Case 2:08-cv-01250-MHM Document 8 Filed 09/15/08 Page 8 of 9
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 - 9 -

the personally served Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

(12) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and First

Amended Complaint must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal,

not the Plaintiff.

(13) Defendants must answer the First Amended 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.

(14) 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.

(15) 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 further proceedings.

DATED this 12th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01250-MHM Document 8 Filed 09/15/08 Page 9 of 9