Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01020/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01020-1/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

TERMPSREF

SVK

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gregory Allen Chambers, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1020-PHX-DGC (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Gregory Allen Chambers, who is confined in the Maricopa County Durango

Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. By Order dated May 30, 2007, the Court granted the

Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff has filed

a First Amended Complaint. The Court will order Defendant Arpaio to answer Count III of

the First Amended Complaint and will dismiss the remaining claims and Defendant without

prejudice. 

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 2:07-cv-01020-DGC-LOA Document 6 Filed 07/05/07 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). 

II. First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff names the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and Joseph Arpaio, Sheriff, as

Defendants. The First Amended Complaint contains three counts challenging conditions of

confinement in the Jail. In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that his access to religion is restricted

because only three detainees are permitted to attend religious services each week, and with

70 people in his pod, all but the fastest are “out of luck.” In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that

he has asked for a change of diet (one that won’t cause his stomach to bleed), that the

medical staff is aware of his ailment, and that he is on a three-month waiting list. In Count

III, Plaintiff alleges that for three months he has been housed in a condemned building where

asbestos tiles fall on his head, that he is breathing asbestos, and that Defendants are aware

of the dangers of asbestos. He alleges that breathing asbestos is causing his sinuses to

inflame and his nose to bleed. For relief, Plaintiff seeks damages.

III. Improper Defendant—Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not a proper Defendant. In Arizona, the

responsibility of operating jails and caring for prisoners is placed by law upon the sheriff.

See A.R.S. § 11-441(A)(5); A.R.S. § 31-101. A sheriff’s office is simply an administrative

creation of the county sheriff to allow him to carry out his statutory duties and not a “person”

amenable to suit pursuant to § 1983. Therefore, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office will

be dismissed. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim

A. Count I

Prisoners retain the First Amendment right directing that no law shall prohibit the free

exercise of religion. O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987); Henderson v.

Terhune, 379 F. 3d 709 (9th Cir. 2004). To state a First Amendment free exercise of religion

claim, Plaintiff must allege that Defendant burdened the practice of Plaintiff’s religion by

preventing him from engaging in conduct mandated by his faith without any justification

Case 2:07-cv-01020-DGC-LOA Document 6 Filed 07/05/07 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 -

reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 736

(9th Cir. 1997). Here, although Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Arpaio is aware of

overcrowding, he does not claim that a policy of limiting the number of inmates who attend

services either prevents Plaintiff from engaging in conduct mandated by his faith or is

without justification related to legitimate penological interests. Count I fails to state a claim

and will be dismissed.

B. Count II

As Plaintiff was previously advised, to state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs

must allege that they suffered a specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant

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

v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). Plaintiff does not connect the harm in Count

II to Defendant Arpaio. Plaintiff states only that the “medical staff” is aware of his ailment.

This does not state a claim against Defendant Arpaio, and the Court will dismiss Count II.

V. Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required

Plaintiff has adequately stated a claim against Defendant Arpaio in Count III, and the

Court will direct Defendant to answer that count.

VI. 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.

Case 2:07-cv-01020-DGC-LOA Document 6 Filed 07/05/07 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 -

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) Counts I and II and Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office are dismissed

without prejudice.

(2) Defendant Arpaio must answer Count III. 

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

Amended Complaint (Doc. #5), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms

for Defendant Arpaio.

(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 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. 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.

Case 2:07-cv-01020-DGC-LOA Document 6 Filed 07/05/07 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 -

(7) The United States Marshal must notify Defendant 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

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

the personally served Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) and (5) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

(8) If Defendant agrees to waive service of the Summons and First Amended

Complaint, he must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, not

the Plaintiff.

(9) Defendant Arpaio 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.

///

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-01020-DGC-LOA Document 6 Filed 07/05/07 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 -

(10) 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 further proceedings.

DATED this 5th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01020-DGC-LOA Document 6 Filed 07/05/07 Page 6 of 6