Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00432/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00432-1/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

Enrique Jesse Hernandez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-432-PHX-JAT (LOA)

ORDER

On February 25, 2010, Plaintiff Enrique Jesse Hernandez, who is confined in the

Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On March 9, 2010, the

Court denied the Application to Proceed with leave to re-file. On April 6, 2010, Plaintiff

filed a new Application to Proceed. In a May 7, 2010 Order, the Court granted the new

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 June 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. #9). The Court

will order Defendants Dolezal and Wheeler to answer the First Amended Complaint and will

dismiss the remaining Defendants without prejudice. 

. . . .

Case 2:10-cv-00432-JAT Document 10 Filed 06/11/10 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 -

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-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.

II. First Amended Complaint

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

Canteen Staff Dolezal; Kitchen Supervisor Wheeler; Sergeant Wall; and Warden William.

Plaintiff alleges that his First Amendment rights are violated because he is regularly

provided kosher food trays that are missing food items and he is not provided with a

nutritionally equivalent substitution. Plaintiff seeks money damages.

Case 2:10-cv-00432-JAT Document 10 Filed 06/11/10 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 -

III. Failure to State a Claim

To state a First Amendment, free-exercise-of-religion claim, a plaintiff must allege

that a defendant burdened the practice of plaintiff’s religion by preventing him from

engaging in a sincerely held religious belief and that the defendant did so without any

justification reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Shakur v. Schriro, 514

F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2008).

With respect to Defendant Wall, Plaintiff alleges only that “Canteen Supervisor, Ms.

Wheeler, Canteen Staff Dolezal and Sergeant Wall determined to C.O. III Temple inspected

my kosher tray that was prepared for dinner tha[t] day which . . . was the only day the . . .

meal was complete.” These allegations are both vague and insufficient to state a claim

against Defendant Wall. The Court will therefore dismiss Defendant Wall.

With respect to Defendant William, Plaintiff claims that “Defendant CA M. William

as Warden failed to do his job because I sen[t] him a[n] Inmate letter notifying him [of] the

problem . . . I have which he didn’t respond on it instead the Deputy Warden G. Fizer

response . . . .” Where a defendant’s only involvement in the allegedly unconstitutional

conduct is the denial of or failure to respond to administrative grievances, the failure to

intervene on a prisoner’s behalf to remedy alleged unconstitutional behavior does not amount

to active unconstitutional behavior for purposes of § 1983. Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295,

300 (6th Cir. 1999). The Court will therefore dismiss Defendant Wall.

IV. Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required

Plaintiff claims that even after repeated complaints, Defendants Dolezal and Wheeler

failed to correct the problem of missing food items on Plaintiff’s tray. Plaintiff claims that

on many days he did not receive sufficient food and that Defendants did not attempt to

replace missing food items with a nutritionally equivalent food from the kosher menu.

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated a claim against Defendants Dolezal and Wheeler and

the Court will require these Defendants to answer the Amended Complaint.

Case 2:10-cv-00432-JAT Document 10 Filed 06/11/10 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 -

V. 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,

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) Defendants Wall and William are dismissed without prejudice.

(2) Defendants Dolezal and Wheeler must answer the Amended Complaint. 

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

Amended Complaint (Doc. #9), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms

for Defendants Dolezal and Wheeler.

Case 2:10-cv-00432-JAT Document 10 Filed 06/11/10 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 -

(4) Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court

within 21 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 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).

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

Amended 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. 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 2:10-cv-00432-JAT Document 10 Filed 06/11/10 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 -

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 First

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

not the Plaintiff.

(9) Defendant 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.

(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.

(11) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson 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 11th day of June, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00432-JAT Document 10 Filed 06/11/10 Page 6 of 6