Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02454/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02454-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daniel Wayne Cook, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Janice K. Brewer, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2454-PHX-RCB

ORDER

Plaintiff Daniel Wayne Cook, who is an Arizona prisoner under sentence of death, has

filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis. The Court will order Defendants to answer the Complaint. 

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 assess an initial partial filing fee of $14.86. The remainder of the fee will be

collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 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 2:10-cv-02454-RCB Document 7 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

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, 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.

III. Complaint

In his three-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues the following Defendants: Arizona

Governor Janice K. Brewer, Arizona Department of Corrections Director Charles L. Ryan,

Eyman Unit Warden Ernest Trujillo, Florence Unit Warden Carson McWilliams, and Does

1-50. In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that the State’s use of non-FDA approved sodium

thiopental manufactured in a foreign country creates a substantial and unnecessary risk of

Case 2:10-cv-02454-RCB Document 7 Filed 11/15/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

serious harm in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. In Count Two, Plaintiff

alleges that the State’s failure to provide him with notice regarding the sodium thiopental it

intends to use in his execution violates his right to due process under the Fourteenth

Amendment. In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that the administration of non-FDA approved

sodium thiopental from a foreign source by a medical doctor or other trained medical

professional demonstrates deliberate indifference to his right to be free from cruel and

unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. In his Prayer for Relief, Plaintiff seeks

declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court has reviewed the Complaint. Plaintiff has stated

Eighth Amendment and Due Process claims. The Court will require Defendants to answer

the Complaint.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3) is granted. 

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

Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $14.86.

(3) The Clerk of Court shall forward to the United States Marshal copies of the

Summons, Complaint, and this Order.

(4) The United States Marshal shall serve copies of the Summons, Complaint, and

this Order upon Defendants Janice K. Brewer, Charles L. Ryan, Ernest Trujillo, and Carson

McWilliams pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(5) Defendants shall answer the Complaint and/or respond by appropriate motion

pursuant to the applicable provisions of Rules 12 and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure no later than Friday, December 3, 2010.

DATED this 15th day of November, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-02454-RCB Document 7 Filed 11/15/10 Page 3 of 3