Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02570/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02570-0/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 

JDDL-K 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

William Beamon, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Arizona Department of Corrections, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 13-2570-PHX-RCB (LOA) 

 O R D E R 

Plaintiff William Beamon, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexFlorence, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) 

and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the 

Complaint with leave to amend. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

 Plaintiff’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. Id. The statutory filing fee will be 

collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited to 

Plaintiff’s trust account 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. 

. . . . 

Case 2:13-cv-02570-SMM-MHB Document 6 Filed 04/22/14 Page 1 of 10
- 2 - 

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 

II. 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, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(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 679. 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 681. 

 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, 

courts must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 

342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less 

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 

Case 2:13-cv-02570-SMM-MHB Document 6 Filed 04/22/14 Page 2 of 10
- 3 - 

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 

 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 a complaint before dismissal 

of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 

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

advice “would undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. 

Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to 

decide whether the court was required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff’s 

Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may possibly be 

amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 

III. Complaint 

 In his three-count Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants Deputy Warden 

Smith-Whitson, Trinity Staff Member Matthews, and CO II Fernandez, who all work at 

the “Florence Prison.” Plaintiff seeks damages. 

 Plaintiff designates Count I as a threat to safety and alleges the following facts: on 

December 1, 2013, Plaintiff walked into the freezer, where the temperature was -10 

degrees, and Defendant Matthews locked Plaintiff in “on purpose” by putting a padlock 

on the door. Plaintiff was not able to get out and hit the emergency release. Plaintiff then 

hit the panic button until he was released from the freezer. Defendant Fernandez 

witnessed “this malicious act” but did not report it until December 2, 2013 and so 

Plaintiff did not receive medical attention. On December 6, 2013, a psychologist 

diagnosed Plaintiff with post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). 

 In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that his First Amendment rights were violated on 

December 2, 2013 when he “was forced to work with [Defendant] Matthews after this 

malicious act” because Defendant Fernandez did not report the incident until the end of 

the working day on December 2, 2013. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Matthews 

ordered him to put a tray in the freezer and that Matthews locked the freezer door once 

Plaintiff was inside. Plaintiff alleges that he “was compelled to associate with and work 

Case 2:13-cv-02570-SMM-MHB Document 6 Filed 04/22/14 Page 3 of 10
- 4 - 

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 

for Matthews against [Plaintiff’s] will after he showed and did a malicious intent to lock 

[Plaintiff] in a freezer.” 

 In Count III, Plaintiff alleges that his Fifth, Eighth and Thirteenth Amendment 

rights were violated when he “was locked into the facility kitchen freezer which 

constitutes both slavery and cruel and extremely unusual punishment because it was done 

to me with a wanton and express intent to inflict unconstitutional punishment.” Plaintiff 

alleges that Defendant Smith-Whitson failed to protect him and his life was put in danger 

when he was locked in the freezer. Defendant Fernandez allowed another staff member 

“to act in a manner without reporting it that justifies cruel and unusual punishment.” In 

addition, ADOC failed to charge Defendant Matthews with kidnapping and unlawful 

imprisonment for locking Plaintiff in the freezer, even though Plaintiff asked for 

Matthews to get the same treatment Plaintiff would have received if he had committed 

the same act. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim

 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts supporting that (1) the 

conduct about which he complains was committed by a person acting under the color of 

state law and (2) the conduct deprived him of a federal constitutional or statutory right. 

Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989). A plaintiff must also allege that 

he suffered a specific injury as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he 

must allege an affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. 

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 

 A. Arizona Department of Corrections 

 It is not clear if Plaintiff is attempting to sue the Arizona Department of 

Corrections (“ADOC”). Plaintiff includes the ADOC in the caption of his Complaint and 

alleges in Count III that the ADOC failed to charge Defendant Matthews with kidnapping 

and unlawful imprisonment. However, Plaintiff has not listed the ADOC as a Defendant 

on page two of the Complaint form, where Plaintiff is required to list all Defendants he is 

suing. Nevertheless, the ADOC is not a proper Defendant. Under the Eleventh 

Case 2:13-cv-02570-SMM-MHB Document 6 Filed 04/22/14 Page 4 of 10
- 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 

JDDL-K 

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a state or state agency may not be 

sued in federal court without its consent. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 

465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); cf. Peralta 

v. Dillard, No. 09-55907, slip op. at 9-10 (9th Cir. March 6, 2014) (while the Eleventh 

Amendment bars suit against a state under § 1983 for damages, a person acting under 

color of state law may be sued in his official capacity for prospective injunctive relief). 

Further, neither the State of Arizona nor any State agency is a “person” within the 

meaning of § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989) 

(holding that the term “person” as used in § 1983 did not include a State or State agency). 

 B. Count I (Threat to Safety) 

 To state a claim under § 1983 for a threat to safety or failure to protect, an inmate 

must allege facts to support that he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial 

risk of harm and that prison officials were “deliberately indifferent” to those risks. 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994). To adequately allege deliberate 

indifference, a plaintiff must allege facts to support that a defendant knew of, but 

disregarded, an excessive risk to inmate safety. Id. at 837. That is, “the official must 

both [have been] aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a 

substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed], and he must also [have] draw[n] the inference.” 

Id. “A prison official’s ‘deliberate indifference’ to a substantial risk of serious harm to an 

inmate violates the Eighth Amendment.” Id. (citations omitted). 

 In this case, Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for threat to 

safety. Although Plaintiff makes the conclusory allegation that Defendant Matthews 

locked him in the freezer “on purpose,” Plaintiff does not allege facts demonstrating that 

he was purposefully locked in the freezer by Defendant Matthews. For example, Plaintiff 

fails to allege how long he was locked in the freezer. Likewise, Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendant Matthews ordered him to put a tray in the freezer, but it is not clear if Plaintiff 

went into the freezer immediately following this order and Matthews saw Plaintiff go into 

the freezer, or if some time elapsed between the order and when Plaintiff went into the 

Case 2:13-cv-02570-SMM-MHB Document 6 Filed 04/22/14 Page 5 of 10
- 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 

JDDL-K 

freezer so that Matthews might not have seen Plaintiff enter the freezer. In addition, 

Plaintiff does not say who released him from the freezer, what anyone said upon 

Plaintiff’s release, if anything, or if Plaintiff tried to report that he had been locked in the 

freezer. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that five days after the freezer incident a psychologist 

diagnosed him with PTSD, but Plaintiff fails to state whether the PTSD diagnosis was 

new and related to the freezer incident, and whether the psychologist recommended any 

treatment or medication for Plaintiff’s PTSD. Absent additional facts, Plaintiff fails to 

state a claim for threat to safety, and Count I will be dismissed without prejudice. 

 C. Count II (First Amendment) 

 Plaintiff alleges that he was compelled to associate with Defendant Matthews on 

December 2, 2013, in violation of his First Amendment rights. As an initial matter, it is 

not clear who compelled Plaintiff to associate with Defendant Matthews or who this 

claim is being asserted against. Also, the First Amendment is typically implicated when 

a plaintiff alleges that his right to associate with others has been abridged. “A prison 

inmate retains those first amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a 

prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system.” Pell v. 

Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974). However, the associational rights of prisoners 

“may be curtailed whenever the institution’s officials, in the exercise of their informed 

discretion, reasonably conclude that such associations . . . possess the likelihood of 

disruption of prison order or stability . . . . ” Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor 

Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 132 (1977). Plaintiff’s allegations do not support a First 

Amendment claim, and Count II will be dismissed. 

D. Count III (Fifth, Eighth and Thirteenth Amendments) 

 Plaintiff alleges in Count III that his Fifth, Eighth and Thirteenth Amendment 

rights were violated during the December 1, 2013 freezer incident. Count III is based on 

the same conduct at issue in Count I, which Plaintiff designates as a threat to safety claim 

and which is analyzed under the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment claim in Count III will be dismissed because it is duplicative of Count I. 

Case 2:13-cv-02570-SMM-MHB Document 6 Filed 04/22/14 Page 6 of 10
- 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 

 Plaintiff also asserts a Fifth Amendment claim in relation to the freezer incident. 

It is not clear what Fifth Amendment right Plaintiff is alleging was violated. Presumably, 

Plaintiff is attempting to allege a due process claim. “[I]f a constitutional claim is 

covered by a specific constitutional provision, such as the Fourth or Eighth Amendment, 

the claim must be analyzed under the standard appropriate to that specific provision, not 

under the rubric of substantive due process [under the Fifth Amendment].” Crown Point 

Dev., Inc. v. City of Sun Valley, 506 F.3d 851, 853 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Graham v. 

Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 (1989)); see Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994). In 

this case, any due process claim that Plaintiff is attempting to assert is subsumed by his 

Eighth Amendment claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim is dismissed. 

Plaintiff also alleges that being locked in the freezer constitutes slavery. “The 

Thirteenth Amendment declares that ‘[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude, except 

as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist 

within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.’” United States v. 

Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 942 (1988) (quoting Amendment XIII). “[T]he term 

‘involuntary servitude’ necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is 

forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical 

injury, or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process.” Id. at 943. 

“By its terms [the Thirteenth] Amendment excludes involuntary servitude imposed as 

legal punishment for a crime.” Id. at 943. Plaintiff does not allege facts that can be 

construed to allege a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

Thirteenth Amendment claim, and Count III, will be dismissed. 

V. 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. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a 

first amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will 

mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first amended complaint. If 

Case 2:13-cv-02570-SMM-MHB Document 6 Filed 04/22/14 Page 7 of 10
- 8 - 

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 

Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the amended 

complaint and dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 

 If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements 

telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name 

of the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to 

do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of 

Plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of 

that Defendant’s conduct. See 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 affirmatively link the conduct of each named Defendant with the specific 

injury suffered by Plaintiff, the allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim. Conclusory allegations that a Defendant or group of 

Defendants has violated a constitutional right are not acceptable and will be 

dismissed. 

 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First 

Amended Complaint.” The first 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. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 

 A first 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 Court will treat an original 

complaint as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised 

in the original complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without 

prejudice is waived if it is not alleged in a first amended complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 2:13-cv-02570-SMM-MHB Document 6 Filed 04/22/14 Page 8 of 10
- 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 

JDDL-K 

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. 

C. Copies

 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 “Strike”

 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 may count as a “strike” under the “3-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Under the 3-strikes provision, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil 

judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more 

prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal 

in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, 

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner 

is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

E. 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, 963 

Case 2:13-cv-02570-SMM-MHB Document 6 Filed 04/22/14 Page 9 of 10
- 10 - 

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 

F.2d at 1260-61 (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any 

order of the Court). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted. 

 (2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government 

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

filing fee. 

(3) The Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff 

has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended complaint in 

compliance with this Order. 

 (4) If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of 

Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with 

prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

(5) The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff a court-approved form for filing a 

civil rights complaint by a prisoner. 

DATED this 17th day of April, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-02570-SMM-MHB Document 6 Filed 04/22/14 Page 10 of 10