Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01421/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01421-1/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

28

JDDL-K

WO JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jorge Escalante, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joe Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1421-PHX-NVW (DKD)

ORDER

This is a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed by an inmate confined

in the Maricopa County Durango Jail in Phoenix, Arizona. The Court will dismiss the action

with leave to amend.

A. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis & Filing Fee.

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for this action.

An initial partial filing fee of $3.35 will be assessed by this Order. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

By separate order, the Court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial

filing fee from Plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of Court. Thereafter,

Plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s

income credited to Plaintiff’s trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the

appropriate agency to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in Plaintiff’s account exceeds

$10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Case 2:05-cv-01421-NVW--DKD Document 4 Filed 10/26/05 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 -

Plaintiff should take notice that if he is released before the filing fee is paid in full, he

must pay the remaining unpaid amount of the filing fee within 120 days of the date of his

release. If Plaintiff fails to pay the remainder of the filing fee within 120 days of the date of

his release, the action will be dismissed, unless Plaintiff shows good cause, in writing, why

he is unable to pay the remainder of the filing fee.

B. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against

a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if 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). 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 the

complaint before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th

Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court is required to grant leave to amend “if a complaint can

possibly be saved,” but not if the Complaint “lacks merit entirely.” Id. at 1129. A court

therefore should grant leave to amend if the pleading could be cured by the allegation of

other facts, or if it appears at all possible that the defect can be corrected. Id. at 1130. The

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

“would undermine the district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 124

S. Ct. 2441, 2446 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to decide whether

court was required to inform 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.

C. Complaint.

Plaintiff sues Sheriff Joe Arpaio. In Count I, he alleges that on March 10, 2005 he

was stabbed twice in the chest by another inmate who was placed in his cell. Plaintiff

contends that detention officers ignored warnings of the other inmate's strange behavior prior

Case 2:05-cv-01421-NVW--DKD Document 4 Filed 10/26/05 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 -

to the stabbing incident. In Count II, Plaintiff asserts that the jail is severely overcrowded

and the food is improperly handled and spoiled. And in Count III, Plaintiff alleges that the

living conditions are unsanitary. For relief, Plaintiff requests that the conditions be

alleviated, a previous court decision be enforced, and he be awarded monetary damages.

D. Improper Defendant.

Plaintiff names Sheriff Joe Arpaio as the sole Defendant. To state a § 1983 claim, a

plaintiff must allege that he suffered specific injury as a result of the specific conduct of a

defendant, and show an affirmative link between the injury and that conduct. Rizzo v.

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). Plaintiff has not connected his claims to the

Defendant.

In addition, Arpaio may not be liable individually simply because he supervises

persons who may have violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. There is no respondeat

superior liability under § 1983. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Taylor

v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “A supervisor is only liable for constitutional

violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or

knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. “A

plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was

personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d

1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). There are no allegations to meet this standard.

Regarding Arpaio in his official capacity, a suit against him officially is equivalent

to a suit brought against the governmental entity. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police,

491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). In this case, the governmental entity is Maricopa County. A

county is the liable entity under § 1983 when its policy, practice or custom causes

constitutional injury. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 694. In that instance, the county’s liability is

based on the actions of its policymakers, such as a sheriff. See Cortez v. County of Los

Angeles, 294 F.3d 1186, 1188-92 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding that sheriff acted on behalf of

county, subjecting county to § 1983 liability). A sheriff could be sued in his official capacity

for a policy, practice, or custom he put into place on behalf of the county that caused the

Case 2:05-cv-01421-NVW--DKD Document 4 Filed 10/26/05 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 -

constitutional injury. There are no allegations to support liability against Arpaio in his

official capacity. In light of the foregoing, there are no named Defendants who may be liable

for Plaintiff’s claims. 

If the evidence justifies it, Plaintiff may name persons in their individual capacities.

If he does so, he must write short, plain statements telling the court: (1) the constitutional

right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of the person who violated the right; (3)

exactly what that individual did or failed to do; (4) how the action or inaction of that person

is connected to the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (5) what specific injury

Plaintiff suffered because of that person’s conduct. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371-72, 377. Plaintiff

must repeat this process for each person he names as a Defendant. If Plaintiff fails to do this

for any person named as a Defendant, the court will dismiss that Defendant from this action.

E. Failure to State a Claim.

Throughout his Complaint, Plaintiff refers to Hart v. Hill, No. CV 77-0479-PHX-EHC

(D. Ariz.), claiming that the conditions of his confinement violate that decision. Jurisdiction

to enforce the judgment is retained by the court which entered it. Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365

F.3d 844, 853 (9th Cir. 2004). A civil rights action is not the proper means by which to

enforce the decree. Cagle v. Sutherland, 334 F.3d 980, 986 (11th Cir. 2003); Klein v.

Zavaras, 80 F.3d 432, 435 (10th Cir. 1996); DeGidio v. Pung, 920 F.2d 525, 534 (8th Cir.

1990); Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1122-23 (5th Cir. 1986). Standing alone,

remedial orders cannot serve as a substantive basis for a § 1983 claim for damages because

such orders do not create “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and

laws.” Green, 788 F.3d at 1123-24. Remedial decrees are the means by which

unconstitutional conditions are corrected but they do not create or enlarge constitutional

rights. Id. at 1123. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to enforce Hart v. Hill, his claim is not

properly brought in this action. Instead, his allegations must separately state a violation of

a constitutional right. Plaintiff’s amendment, if he chooses to file one, should not rely on

Hart v. Hill as the basis for his claim.

Case 2:05-cv-01421-NVW--DKD Document 4 Filed 10/26/05 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 -

F. 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. Plaintiff may amend his Complaint to cure the

deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will be directed to provide Plaintiff with a

Court-approved form for filing a civil rights complaint. Plaintiff is advised that the 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. Any amended complaint

submitted by Plaintiff should be clearly designated as such on the face of the document. 

Plaintiff is also reminded that in an Amended Complaint, he may only include one

claim per count. The “one claim per count” rule is set forth in the form Complaint and

accompanying instructions, and is a requirement imposed by the local rules of this Court.

See LRCiv 3.4(a) (complaint must be in accordance with the instructions provided with the

form). 

An 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 original pleading is treated as nonexistent.

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Thus, causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are

not alleged in an amended complaint are waived. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.

1987).

G. Address Changes.

In the notice of assignment issued in this action (Doc. #2), Plaintiff was advised he

must file a notice of change of address if his address changes. Plaintiff is again reminded

that at all times during the pendency of this action, Plaintiff shall immediately advise the

Court of any change of address and its effective date. Such notice shall be captioned

“NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.” Plaintiff shall serve a copy of the Notice of

Change of Address on all opposing parties. The notice shall contain only information

pertaining to the change of address and its effective date, and shall not include a motion for

other relief. Failure to timely file a notice of change of address may result in the dismissal

Case 2:05-cv-01421-NVW--DKD Document 4 Filed 10/26/05 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 -

of the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

H. Warning of Possible Dismissal.

Plaintiff should take note that if he fails to timely comply with every provision of this

Order, this action will be dismissed without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-

61(district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any order of the Court).

Moreover, 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 of this action will count as a “strike” under the “three strikes” provision of the

Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

(2) Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for this action.

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $3.35. All fees shall be collected and paid

in accordance with this Court=s Order to the appropriate government agency filed

concurrently herewith.

(3) The Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff shall have 30

days from the date this Order is filed to file an Amended Complaint in compliance with this

Order.

(4) The Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with

prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint

within thirty (30) days of the date this Order is filed. Upon entry of judgment, the Clerk shall

make an entry on the docket in this matter indicating that the dismissal of this action falls

within the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

(5) Aside from the two copies of the complaint or amended complaint that must be

submitted pursuant to Rule 3.5(a) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, a clear, legible copy

of every pleading or other document filed shall accompany each original pleading or other

Case 2:05-cv-01421-NVW--DKD Document 4 Filed 10/26/05 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 -

document filed with the Clerk for use by the District Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom the

case is assigned. See LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the

pleading or document being stricken without further notice to Plaintiff.

(6) The Clerk of Court shall provide to Plaintiff a current court-approved form for

filing a civil rights complaint by a prisoner.

DATED this 25th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01421-NVW--DKD Document 4 Filed 10/26/05 Page 7 of 7