Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00670/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00670-0/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 JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Allan Kenneth Morgal, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-670-PHX-MHM (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Allan Kenneth Morgal brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, Captain Tate, the Maricopa County Board

of Supervisors, and Correctional Health Services (CHS) (Doc. #1). Defendants moved to

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim (Doc. #9). Plaintiff

responded, and Defendants replied (Doc. ##23-24). The Court will grant in part and deny

in part Defendants’ motion.

I. Background

Plaintiff’s claim arose during his confinement at the Maricopa County Fourth Avenue

Jail and Lower Buckeye Jail (Doc. #1 at 1). He alleged that in August 2005, he was spitting

up blood and attempted to obtain medical treatment at the jail by submitting “sick call lists”;

however, he was never seen (id. at 4A). By December Plaintiff had still not been seen, so

he instituted the inmate grievance process. Plaintiff was finally seen by medical in January

2006, approximately 6 weeks after he submitted an inmate grievance (id. at 4B). He claimed

that in addition to coughing up blood, he suffered splitting headaches, ringing ears, and a

virus (id. at 4). Plaintiff alleged that Defendants’ delay in treating his serious medical injury

Case 2:07-cv-00670-RCB Document 26 Filed 11/27/07 Page 1 of 5
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 -

and their medical care policies at the jail constituted deliberate indifference (id. at 4C).

Plaintiff further alleged that in March 2006, he began submitting written and oral

requests for his prescribed high blood pressure medication that he had been taking for the last

14 months following a stroke (id. at 4D). Although the jail had initially been providing

Plaintiff with his medication, by March 17, he had not received his medication for 10 days.

Plaintiff initiated an inmate grievance and was finally provided his medication after going

without for 19 days (id. at 4D-G). He claimed that he was harmed as a result of the delay in

obtaining medication; he suffered from high blood pressure, dizziness, and a constant

headache (id. at 4H). Plaintiff alleged the Defendants’ actions and policies violated his

constitutional rights (id. at 4H-J). 

The Court ordered the four named Defendants to answer, and they filed a Motion to

Dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) (Doc. ##3, 9). In their

motion, Defendants contended that (1) CHS is not a jural entity, (2) the Board of Supervisors

is a not a jural entity, and (3) the Board of Supervisors is not responsible for the operation

of the jails (Doc. #9). 

The Court issued an Order informing Plaintiff of his obligation to respond to

Defendants’ motion (Doc. #10). The Order inadvertently notified Plaintiff that Defendants

were seeking to dismiss the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and

specifically instructed Plaintiff to submit evidence that he exhausted the grievance

procedures (id. at 1-2). Thus, in response Plaintiff argued that he exhausted his claims and

he proffered copies of his grievances and grievance appeals (Doc. #23). 

Defendants replied that they never sought dismissal for nonexhaustion and they

reiterated their contention that CHS and the Board of Supervisors are non-jural entities

entitled to dismissal (Doc. #24).

II. Legal Standard

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)

Rule 12(b)(2) is the vehicle used by a defendant to argue that the district court does

not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, “which raises a question as to whether the

Case 2:07-cv-00670-RCB Document 26 Filed 11/27/07 Page 2 of 5
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 -

controversy or the defendant has sufficient contacts, ties, or relationships with the forum to

give the court the right to exercise judicial power over the defendant—an issue that typically

implicates a jurisdictional statute or rule and quite frequently the Due Process Clause of the

Constitution as well.” 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and

Procedure § 1351 (3d ed. 2004). Because Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims against

CHS and the Board of Supervisors fail to state a claim under § 1983 (because those entities

are non-jural entities), the proper route is Rule 12(b)(6), not Rule 12(b)(2). The Court will

therefore analyze all of Defendants’ arguments for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). See id.

(“the district court may adjudicate the motion and ignore the way it is captioned”).

B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint. North

Star Int’l v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). Dismissal of the

complaint, or any claim within it, “can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or

the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Robertson v. Dean Witter

Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984). 

In determining whether the allegations in a complaint state a claim upon which relief

may be granted, the Court must take the allegations of material fact as true and construe them

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.

1994) (per curiam). Pro se pleadings must be held to a less stringent standard than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Ortez v.

Washington County, 88 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir. 1996). The rule of liberal construction of

pleadings is “particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1261 (9th Cir. 1992). 

III. Analysis

A. CHS

Defendants move to dismiss CHS as a defendant on the ground that it is a not a jural

entity that can be sued (Doc. #9 at 2-3). Municipalities and other local governing bodies are

Case 2:07-cv-00670-RCB Document 26 Filed 11/27/07 Page 3 of 5
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 -

included among those “persons” who may be sued under § 1983. Monell v. Dep’t of Social

Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). Because CHS is not a municipal

corporation, a local governing body, or a private corporation, it is not a “person” amenable

to suit under § 1983. The county is responsible for providing medical care to county jail

inmates through its Board of Supervisors. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-291(A). Any actions

against a county policy must be brought against the county or the board and not against an

administrative subdivision of the county; thus, CHS is an improper defendant. The request

to dismiss CHS will be granted.

B. Board of Supervisors

Defendants’ next argue that the Board of Supervisors is a non-jural entity that cannot

be sued (Doc. #9 at 3-4). Defendants contend that the Board of Supervisors acts for and on

behalf of the county; however, the proper party to sue for their actions is “Maricopa County”

(id.). They also maintain that the Board of Supervisors is not liable because it cannot

establish official policy with regard to the operation of the jails, nor can it be liable under a

theory of respondeat superior (id. at 4-5). 

There are multiple statutory provisions indicating that the Board of Supervisors is a

jural entity. The Board of Supervisors has the power to enter into contractual agreements and

the power to purchase, lease, and sell property and other interests of the county. Ariz. Rev.

Stat. §§ 11-251(7)(9)(18)(19)(23)(26)(28)(29)(41)(42)(61) and 11-251.02(2)(3). The Court

finds that an entity that is capable of entering into these types of agreements must also have

the ability to judicially enforce the agreements or have these agreements judicially enforced

against the entity.

More importantly, as noted above, municipalities and other local governing bodies

constitute “persons” who may be sued under § 1983. Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91. The

Board of Supervisors is a local governing body. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-251 et seq. To

maintain a § 1983 claim against a local governing body, the plaintiff must establish a “policy

or custom” attributable to the body and allege that the policy or custom was the “moving

force” behind the constitutional deprivation. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691-94. Plaintiff’s

Case 2:07-cv-00670-RCB Document 26 Filed 11/27/07 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

allegations sufficiently allege the requisite culpability and causation against the Board of

Supervisors to state a claim under § 1983 (see Doc. #1 at 4C-D, 4J). Moreover, state law

provides that the Board of Supervisors is responsible for the medical care of inmates in the

county jails. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-291(A). 

 For these reasons, Defendants’ request for dismissal on the grounds that the Board of

Supervisors is a non-jural entity and that it is not responsible for the operation of the jails will

be denied. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #9) is granted in part and denied in part as

follows:

(a) the motion is granted as to CHS; CHS must be dismissed from this action;

(b) the motion is denied as to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.

(2) The remaining defendants are Joseph Arpaio, Captain Tate, and the Maricopa

County Board of Supervisors.

DATED this 26th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00670-RCB Document 26 Filed 11/27/07 Page 5 of 5