Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00572/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00572-1/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

JDDL-K

SC

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel Luis Medina,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 13-0572-PHX-DGC (JFM)

ORDER

Plaintiff Manuel Luis Medina, who is now confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex, Buckley-Blue Unit, in Buckeye, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which the Court dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave 

to amend.1 (Doc. 1, 8.) Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 14.) The 

Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim with leave to 

amend. 

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 

1

 Plaintiff was incarcerated in Maricopa County’s Fourth Avenue Jail when he commenced this case. 

- 1 -

 

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 1 of 25
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

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)). 

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 will dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 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.

- 2 -

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 2 of 25
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. First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff alleges two counts for threat to safety and denial of due process in 

connection with disciplinary proceedings. Plaintiff sues Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph 

M. Arpaio and the following current or former employees of the Sheriff’s Office: 

Disciplinary Facility Commander A4038; Rick Bailey, head of classification personnel; 

and Detention Officer Burke. Plaintiff seeks injunctive, compensatory, and punitive 

relief. 

Portions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, particularly page 3, are only 

partially legible. Omitting the illegible portions, Plaintiff alleges the following facts, 

which the Court summarizes chronologically: Plaintiff was booked into the Fourth 

Avenue Jail on March 2, 2012. (Doc. 14 at 3B.) On January 17, 2013, Plaintiff signed a 

waiver to be removed from General Population (GP) and to be placed into Protective 

Segregation (PS) after Plaintiff was informed by jail intelligence staff that a death threat 

had been made against him by known Mexican Mafia gang-members and upon the 

recommendation of jail intelligence staff.2

 However, after further review, jail officials 

informed Plaintiff that he was not eligible for placement in Administrative Segregation 

(AS) at the Lower Buckeye Jail (LBJ), where PS inmates were typically held.3

 The 

Fourth Avenue Jail, where Plaintiff was being held, did not have a PS pod. Therefore, 

Classification Officer Bailey raised Plaintiff’s classification to Close Custody (CC) and 

Plaintiff was placed in a CC pod, specifically, pod 4F100. Each CC inmate was held in a 

one-person cell for 23 hours a day with an hour out of his cell alone for showers and 

other tasks; each CC inmate was supposed to be kept separate from other inmates, 

including other CC inmates. According to Plaintiff, most CC inmates were so designated 

because of disciplinary infractions that posed risks to other inmates and staff. In addition, 

at times relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, inmates from the Arizona Department of 

2

 Plaintiff alleges that the threats were caught on a recording. (Doc. 14 at 3B.) 

3

 Plaintiff subsequently learned that he was not eligible to go to LBJ because of his history.

- 3 -

 

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 3 of 25
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

Corrections (ADC) were also held in CC pods. Plaintiff contends that Defendants knew 

that placing a PS inmate in a CC pod could pose a risk to the PS inmate if the inmates 

were allowed out of their cells at the same time. 

At some point prior to January 31, 2013, inmate Anthony German was in Pod 

4F200, which was identical to Plaintiff’s pod 4F100. An officer mistakenly 

simultaneously opened all of the cell doors in the pod, which enabled some of the CC 

inmates to assault German resulting in a severe spinal injury. On or about January 31, 

2013, an officer, apparently Burke, mistakenly simultaneously opened all of the cell 

doors in Pod 4F100, although apparently no assaults occurred because of the error. 

On February 3, 2013, ADC Inmate Cruz, who was a member of a Security Threat 

Group (STG), specifically the Mexican Mafia, arrived at the jail and was housed in 

Plaintiff’s pod, 4F100. (Id. at 3C.) Another inmate, Inmate Lechuga, who was also 

affiliated with the Mexican Mafia, was also housed in Plaintiff’s pod. (Id. at 3C-3D.) 

On February 11, 2013, Burke again erroneously simultaneously opened all the cell 

doors in Pod 4F100 and immediately turned his attention away from Pod 4F100 to look at 

a computer. Plaintiff and other inmates in the pod began leaving their cells without 

realizing that all of the cells had been simultaneously opened. As they realized the error, 

some of the inmates attempted to alert Burke so that Burke would close the cell doors, 

but Burke, who was looking in another direction, did not see them. As this was 

occurring, Inmate Cruz, who had been in cell 4F22, began assaulting another inmate. 

Inmate Lechuga, who was two doors down from Plaintiff’s cell, joined in the assault of 

that inmate. Lechuga then saw Plaintiff. Lechuga raised his hand to attack Plaintiff, but 

Plaintiff “defend[ed]” himself and prevented Lechuga from pushing Plaintiff back into 

his cell where Plaintiff might have been trapped with Lechuga. (Id. at 3A.) At about this 

point, Burke saw what was happening in the pod and summoned back-up. Two or three 

minutes later, back-up officers arrived in force and used tasers to stop Cruz. Other 

officers came “running up the steps to subdue the remaining inmates, [and] inmate 

Lechuga was ordered to the [ground] as he did comply [sic].” (Id.) Plaintiff waited by 

- 4 -

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 4 of 25
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

his cell for the door to be re-opened.4 Plaintiff suffered injuries to his left shoulder, lower 

back, and face as well as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In response to 

grievances, Sergeant Mank told inmates that there was nothing that could be done about 

housing PS inmates in CC pods because there was no room to house PS inmates 

separately in the Fourth Avenue Jail. Plaintiff was apparently issued a disciplinary 

charge. Facility Commander A4038, who was in charge of disciplinary appeals, found 

Plaintiff guilty of fighting, although he acknowledged that the doors were not supposed to 

have been opened simultaneously. (Id. at 3E-3F.)

Plaintiff contends that Burke knew of the risk of inmate assaults if all cells in the 

pod were simultaneously opened, based on prior assaults in such circumstances, and had 

been trained to open cell doors properly. According to Plaintiff, there are “a lot of 

intricate buttons to push to operate each door correctly and prevent assaults, deaths, and 

other incidents from occurring,” about which officers receive extensive training. (Id.) 

Plaintiff contends that Classification Officer Bailey knew that housing PS inmates in a 

CC pod could pose a serious risk of assault or injury to a PS inmate by CC inmates, if an 

opportunity arose. Plaintiff further contends that Bailey knew that PS inmates, such as 

German, had previously been assaulted by CC inmates when inadvertently allowed out of 

their cells at the same time as PS inmates. According to Plaintiff, Bailey allowed “high 

Close Custody inmates to be housed amongst [PS] inmates which created and still is a 

high risk of housing [PS] inmates with [CC] inmates[.]” (Id. at 3D.)

Plaintiff contends that Arpaio is chief custodian and is responsible for providing 

safe conditions. Plaintiff contends that Facility Commander A4038 acknowledged that 

the doors should not have been opened simultaneously and knew of the risks to inmates 

when such occurrences happen, but failed to prevent the February 11, 2013 incident. 

Plaintiff also asserts that he was subjected to the type of confinement ordinarily 

imposed for inmates being punished for disciplinary infractions, and that his placement in 

4

 Plaintiff does not make clear when his cell door was closed, but apparently sometime after he avoided being pushed into his cell by Lechuga.

- 5 -

 

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 5 of 25
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

a CC pod, rather than a PS pod, resulted in restrictions of privileges afforded other PS 

and GP inmates. Plaintiff sought placement in a PS pod, but instead was placed in a CC 

pod because the Fourth Avenue Jail lacked a PS pod. Bailey increased Plaintiff’s 

classification to CC, which resulted in Plaintiff being locked down 23 hours a day, celled 

alone, and denied privileges afforded to other PS and GP inmates. He contends that 

housing him in a CC pod with inmates who were being held there for disciplinary 

infractions amounted to punishment, where Plaintiff remained in the CC pod for six 

months. Plaintiff contends that he was denied due process before being placed in 

allegedly punitive conditions in the CC pod. 

III. 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). Negligence is not sufficient to 

state a claim under § 1983. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986). In 

addition, a plaintiff must 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. Arpaio and Facility Commander A4038

Plaintiff seeks relief against Sheriff Arpaio and Facility Commander A4038. 

While each may be sued under § 1983, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against either. 

To state a claim against a defendant, “[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply 

conclusions [to] show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his 

civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). For an

individual to be liable in his official capacity, a plaintiff must allege that the official acted 

as a result of a policy, practice, or custom. See Cortez v. County of Los Angeles, 294 F.3d 

1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2001). Further, there is no respondeat superior liability under 

§1983, so a defendant’s position as the supervisor of someone who allegedly violated a 

- 6 -

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 6 of 25
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’s constitutional rights does not make him liable. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 

436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A 

supervisor in his individual capacity “is only liable for constitutional violations of his 

subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the 

violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. In addition, 

where a defendant’s only involvement in allegedly unconstitutional conduct is the denial 

of administrative grievances, the failure to intervene on a prisoner’s behalf to remedy the 

alleged unconstitutional behavior does not amount to active unconstitutional behavior for 

purposes of § 1983. See Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999); accord 

Proctor v. Applegate, 661 F.Supp.2d 743, 765 (W.D. Mich. 2009); Stocker v. Warden, 

No. 1:07-CV-00589, 2009 WL 981323, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2009); Mintun v. 

Blades, No. CV-06-139, 2008 WL 711636, at *7 (D. Idaho Mar. 14, 2008); see also

Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 751 (6th Cir. 2006) (a plaintiff must allege 

that a supervisor defendant did more than play a passive role in an alleged violation or 

mere tacit approval thereof; a plaintiff must allege that the supervisor defendant somehow 

encouraged or condoned the actions of their subordinates).

Plaintiff predicates liability against Arpaio based solely on respondeat superior. 

As discussed above, that is not a basis for liability under § 1983. Plaintiff predicates 

liability against Facility Commander A4038 based on the denial of Plaintiff’s disciplinary 

appeal. Plaintiff fails to allege facts to support that Arpaio directly violated his 

constitutional rights or facts to support that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated 

pursuant to a policy, practice, or custom that was promulgated, endorsed, or condoned by 

Arpaio. As noted above, the denial of an appeal, absent more, is not sufficient to state a 

claim against A4038 and Plaintiff does not otherwise allege that his constitutional rights 

were violated pursuant to a policy, practice, or custom promulgated, endorsed, or 

condoned by Facility Commander A4038. For the above reasons, Plaintiff fails to state a 

claim against Arpaio or Facility Commander A4038 and they will be dismissed.

/ / /

- 7 -

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 7 of 25
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

B. Count I

Plaintiff designates Count I as a claim for threat to safety. To state a claim under 

§ 1983 for failure to protect or threats to safety, an inmate must allege facts to show that 

he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of harm and that jail 

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.

Plaintiff appears to contend that Bailey’s classification of him to CC, rather than 

PS, posed a substantial threat to his safety where CC inmates sometimes were 

inadvertently simultaneously released from their cells. Plaintiff also appears to contend 

that the simultaneous opening of cell doors in CC pods posed a threat to his safety. 

Plaintiff describes three instances when CC pod doors were opened inadvertently. In one 

instance, Inmate German was allegedly severely injured. In the second, no inmate was 

injured. In the third, Inmate Lechuga allegedly assaulted Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not 

alleged facts to show that the risks of simultaneous, inadvertent opening of CC cell doors 

posed a substantial risk to Plaintiff’s safety. While Plaintiff cites three occurrences 

during January and February 2013, Plaintiff does not allege any further occurrences 

during the six months that remained in CC at the Jail. 

Even if Plaintiff sufficiently alleged facts to support a substantial threat to his 

safety, Plaintiff has not alleged facts to support that Bailey or Burke acted with deliberate 

indifference to that risk. Plaintiff has not alleged that Burke’s opening of CC cell doors 

on February 11, 2013, or on any other occasion, was anything but inadvertent. Moreover, 

Plaintiff alleges no further occurrences after the February 11, 2013 incident. 

Plaintiff also has failed to allege facts showing that Bailey’s classification of 

Plaintiff to CC posed a substantial threat to his safety. For example, Plaintiff does not 

- 8 -

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 8 of 25
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

contend that he would have been safer in GP, and Plaintiff’s preference to be held in PS 

does not override jail officials’ responsibility to protect other PS inmates. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff fails to state a claim for threat to safety in Count I and it will be dismissed. 

C. Count II

Plaintiff designates Count II as a claim for denial of due process in connection 

with disciplinary proceedings. Pretrial detainees have a substantive due process right 

against restrictions that amount to punishment for criminal offenses. Valdez v. 

Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Salerno, 481 

U.S. 739, 746 (1987)); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979); Redman v. County of 

San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1440-41 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc)). This right is violated if 

restrictions are “imposed for the purpose of punishment.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 535. For 

particular governmental action to constitute punishment, the action must cause the 

detainee to suffer some harm or disability, and the purpose of the action must be to 

punish the detainee. Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020,1029 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Bell, 

441 U.S. at 538). But jail officials are entitled to impose restrictions to effect 

confinement, and detention will necessarily affect a detainee’s ability to live as 

comfortably as he might like; a de minimis level of imposition is permissible.

5

 Bell, 441 

5 Thus:

Not every disability imposed during pretrial detention amounts to 

“punishment” in the constitutional sense, however. Once the Government 

has exercised its conceded authority to detain a person pending trial, it 

obviously is entitled to employ devices that are calculated to effectuate this 

detention. Traditionally, this has meant confinement in a facility which, no 

matter how modern or how antiquated, results in restricting the movement 

of a detainee in a manner in which he would not be restricted if he simply 

were free to walk the streets pending trial. Whether it be called a jail, a 

prison, or a custodial center, the purpose of the facility is to detain. Loss of 

freedom of choice and privacy are inherent incidents of confinement in 

such a facility. And the fact that such detention interferes with the 

detainee’s understandable desire to live as comfortably as possible and with 

as little restraint as possible during confinement does not convert the 

conditions or restrictions of detention into “punishment.”

- 9 -

 

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 9 of 25
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

U.S. at 539 n.21. There is no constitutional infringement, however, if restrictions are 

“but an incident of some other legitimate government purpose.” Id. In such a 

circumstance, governmental restrictions are permissible. Salerno, 481 U.S. at 747.

Plaintiff alleges that after he requested assignment to PS based upon threats 

against him, he was denied PS based on his history. Bailey instead raised Plaintiff’s 

classification to CC, which resulted in Plaintiff being housed separately from other 

inmates, which reduced the possibility of an assault on Plaintiff by other inmates. 

Plaintiff fails to allege facts to show that he was assigned to CC as punishment, rather 

than for legitimate detention purposes: Plaintiff’s allegations reflect that he was placed in 

CC for his protection. While privileges for inmates held in CC were fewer than they 

would have been if he were eligible for placement in PS elsewhere, that did not convert 

his placement in CC into punishment. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against 

Bailey based on his placement in CC.

Plaintiff also alleges that he was charged with a disciplinary infraction for fighting 

stemming from the February 11, 2013 incident, which Plaintiff contends was merely selfdefense. Plaintiff fails to allege whether or how he was sanctioned as a result of the 

disciplinary action. Plaintiff does not allege any change in the conditions to which he 

was already subject by virtue of his placement in the CC pod for his safety, nor does he 

allege that any such sanction rose to the level of punishment for the criminal offenses 

with which he was charged. Even if he had, Plaintiff fails to allege facts to support that 

he was denied any procedural protection prior to being found guilty of fighting. For these 

reasons, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for denial of due process based on his placement in 

CC or based on the subsequent disciplinary charge. 

Plaintiff also appears to be attempting to assert a claim for denial of 

constitutionally adequate conditions of confinement and violation of equal protection 

where PS inmates at the Fourth Avenue Jail were treated differently and had fewer 

privileges than PS inmates at the LBJ Jail. A pretrial detainee’s claim for 

Bell, 441 U.S. at 537.

- 10 -

 

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 10 of 25
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

unconstitutional conditions of confinement arises under the Fourteenth Amendment Due 

Process Clause rather than the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual 

punishment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 and n.16 (1979). Nevertheless, the same 

standards are applied, requiring proof that the defendant acted with deliberate 

indifference. See Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).

To state a claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement, a plaintiff must 

allege that a defendant’s acts or omissions have deprived the inmate of “the minimal 

civilized measure of life’s necessities” and that the defendant acted with deliberate 

indifference to an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 

1087 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834); see Estate of Ford v. RamirezPalmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2002). That is, a plaintiff must allege a 

constitutional deprivation that is objectively “sufficiently serious” to result in the denial 

of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. 

Whether conditions of confinement rise to the level of a constitutional violation may 

depend, in part, on the duration of an inmate’s exposure to those conditions. Keenan v. 

Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 

686-87 (1978)). 

A plaintiff must also allege facts supporting that the jail official had a “sufficiently 

culpable state of mind,” i.e., that the official acted with deliberate indifference to inmate 

health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Deliberate indifference is a higher standard 

than negligence or lack of ordinary due care for the prisoner’s safety. Id. at 835. In 

defining “deliberate indifference,” the Supreme Court has imposed a subjective test, “the 

official must both be aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a 

substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837. 

“‘The circumstances, nature, and duration of a deprivation . . . must be considered in 

determining whether a constitutional violation has occurred.’” Hearns v. Terhune, 413, 

F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 

2000)).

- 11 -

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 11 of 25
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 alleges that he was held in a cell alone, was allowed to leave his cell for 

an hour each day to shower, clean his cell, make telephone calls and the like. He 

complains that mentally ill inmates sometimes defecated or urinated in the hallways and 

that it took days for staff to clean the hallways. Plaintiff does not allege how frequently 

such issues arose, nor does he allege that he brought the issue to the attention of any jail 

staff-member and that staff-member’s response. Plaintiff also complains of the noise 

caused by mentally ill inmates, but he does not describe the frequency or duration of such 

noise. Assuming such conditions rose to the level of being unconstitutional, Plaintiff 

fails to allege facts to support that any named Defendant knew that such conditions posed 

an excessive risk to Plaintiff and that such Defendant nevertheless failed to act to 

alleviate the problem. Plaintiff thus fails to state a claim for unconstitutional conditions 

of confinement against any Defendant. 

Plaintiff contends that PS inmates at the Fourth Avenue Jail were treated 

differently than PS inmates at the LBJ Jail, where PS inmates were afforded more 

privileges. Generally, “[t]o state a claim . . . for a violation of the Equal Protection 

Clause . . . [,] a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to 

discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class.” Barren v. 

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff has not alleged he is a 

member of a protected class.

The United States Supreme Court has also recognized “successful equal protection 

claims brought by a ‘class of one,’ where the plaintiff alleges that [he] has been 

intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational 

basis for the difference in treatment.” Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 

564 (2000); see also SeaRiver Maritime Financial Holdings, Inc. v. Mineta, 309 F.3d 

662, 679 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff fails to state a claim under this standard. He does not 

allege facts to support that he was treated differently than other similarly-situated 

individuals or that there was no rational basis for treating him differently. Plaintiff 

acknowledges that other PS pretrial detainees were held in CC pods under analogous 

- 12 -

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 12 of 25
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

conditions to his own. He does not allege that other PS inmates with histories similar to 

his own were nevertheless held at LBJ, nor does he allege that other PS inmates in CC 

pods were afforded more privileges than Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s allegations also reflect a 

rational basis for not placing him in PS at the LBJ facility, i.e., Plaintiff’s history and 

potential threat posed if he were held at LBJ. Thus, Plaintiff also fails to state an equal 

protection claim. 

IV. Leave to Amend

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff 

may submit a second amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The 

Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a second 

amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may 

strike the second amended complaint and dismiss this action without further notice to 

Plaintiff.

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

Amended Complaint.” The second 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 or First Amended Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one 

claim per count. 

A second amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint and First 

Amended 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 the original Complaint and First Amended Complaint as 

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

original complaint or first amended complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was 

dismissed without prejudice is waived if it is not alleged in a second amended complaint. 

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

/ / /

- 13 -

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 13 of 25
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

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 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 First Amended Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a 

claim, if Plaintiff fails to file a second 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 

- 14 -

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 14 of 25
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

these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 

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) The First Amended Complaint (Doc. 14) is dismissed for failure to state a 

claim. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a second amended 

complaint in compliance with this Order.

(2) If Plaintiff fails to file a second 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).

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

civil rights complaint by a prisoner. 

Dated this 8th day of July, 2014.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

- 15 -

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 15 of 25
Revised 5/1/2013 1

Instructions for a Prisoner Filing a Civil Rights Complaint 

in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

1. Who May Use This Form. The civil rights complaint form is designed to help incarcerated

persons prepare a complaint seeking relief for a violation of their federal civil rights. These

complaints typically concern, but are not limited to, conditions of confinement. This form should

not be used to challenge your conviction or sentence. If you want to challenge a state conviction

or sentence, you should file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus by a

person in state custody. If you want to challenge a federal conviction or sentence, you should file

a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate sentence in the federal court that entered the judgment.

2. The Form. Local Rule of Civil Procedure (LRCiv) 3.4(a) provides that complaints by

incarcerated persons must be filed on the court-approved form. The form must be typed or

neatly handwritten. The form must be completely filled in to the extent applicable. All questions

must be answered clearly and concisely in the appropriate space on the form. If needed, you may

attach additional pages, but no more than fifteen additional pages, of standard letter-sized paper.

You must identify which part of the complaint is being continued and number all pages. If you do

not fill out the form properly, you will be asked to submit additional or corrected information, which

may delay the processing of your action. You do not need to cite law. 

3. Your Signature. You must tell the truth and sign the form. If you make a false statement of a

material fact, you may be prosecuted for perjury.

4. The Filing and Administrative Fees. The total fees for this action are $400.00 ($350.00 filing fee

plus $50.00 administrative fee). If you are unable to immediately pay the fees, you may request

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Please review the “Information for Prisoners Seeking Leave

to Proceed with a (Non-Habeas) Civil Action in Federal Court In Forma Pauperis Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915” for additional instructions.

5. Original and Judge’s Copy. You must send an original plus one copy of your complaint and of

any other documents submitted to the Court. You must send one additional copy to the Court if you

wish to have a file-stamped copy of the document returned to you. All copies must be identical to

the original. Copies may be legibly handwritten.

6. Where to File. You should file your complaint in the division where you were confined when

your rights were allegedly violated. See LRCiv 5.1(a) and 77.1(a). If you were confined in

Maricopa, Pinal, Yuma, La Paz, or Gila County, file in the Phoenix Division. If you were confined

in Apache, Navajo, Coconino, Mohave, or Yavapai County, file in the Prescott Division. If you

were confined in Pima, Cochise, Santa Cruz, Graham, or Greenlee County, file in the Tucson

Division. Mail the original and one copy of the complaint with the $400 filing and

administrative fees or the application to proceed in forma pauperis to:

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 16 of 25
2

Phoenix & Prescott Divisions: OR Tucson Division:

U.S. District Court Clerk U.S. District Court Clerk

U.S. Courthouse, Suite 130 U.S. Courthouse, Suite 1500

401 West Washington Street, SPC 10 405 West Congress Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2119 Tucson, Arizona 85701-5010

7. Change of Address. You must immediately notify the Court and the defendants in writing of any

change in your mailing address. Failure to notify the Court of any change in your mailing

address may result in the dismissal of your case.

8. Certificate of Service. You must furnish the defendants with a copy of any document you submit

to the Court (except the initial complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis). Each

original document (except the initial complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis) must

include a certificate of service on the last page of the document stating the date a copy of the

document was mailed to the defendants and the address to which it was mailed. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 5(a), (d). Any document received by the Court that does not include a certificate of service may

be stricken. A certificate of service should be in the following form:

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed

this (month, day, year) to:

Name: 

Address: 

 Attorney for Defendant(s)

 

(Signature)

9. Amended Complaint. If you need to change any of the information in the initial complaint, you

must file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must be written on the court-approved

civil rights complaint form. You may file one amended complaint without leave (permission) of

Court before any defendant has answered your original complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). After

any defendant has filed an answer, you must file a motion for leave to amend and lodge (submit) a

proposed amended complaint. LRCiv 15.1. In addition, an amended complaint may not incorporate

by reference any part of your prior complaint. LRCiv 15.1(a)(2). Any allegations or defendants

not included in the amended complaint are considered dismissed. All amended complaints are

subject to screening under the Prison Litigation Reform Act; screening your amendment will take

additional processing time.

10. Exhibits. You should not submit exhibits with the complaint or amended complaint. Instead,

the relevant information should be paraphrased. You should keep the exhibits to use to support or

oppose a motion to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment, or at trial.

11. Letters and Motions. It is generally inappropriate to write a letter to any judge or the staff of

any judge. The only appropriate way to communicate with the Court is by filing a written pleading

or motion.

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 17 of 25
3

12. Completing the Civil Rights Complaint Form.

HEADING:

1. Your Name. Print your name, prison or inmate number, and institutional mailing address

on the lines provided.

2. Defendants. If there are four or fewer defendants, print the name of each. If you name

more than four defendants, print the name of the first defendant on the first line, write the

words “and others” on the second line, and attach an additional page listing the names of all

of the defendants. Insert the additional page after page 1 and number it “1-A” at the bottom.

3. Jury Demand. If you want a jury trial, you must write “JURY TRIAL DEMANDED” in

the space below “CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT BY A PRISONER.” Failure to do so may

result in the loss of the right to a jury trial. A jury trial is not available if you are seeking

only injunctive relief.

Part A. JURISDICTION:

1. Nature of Suit. Mark whether you are filing the complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

for state, county, or city defendants; “Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents” for

federal defendants; or “other.” If you mark “other,” identify the source of that authority. 

2. Location. Identify the institution and city where the alleged violation of your rights

occurred. 

3. Defendants. Print all of the requested information about each of the defendants in the

spaces provided. If you are naming more than four defendants, you must provide the

necessary information about each additional defendant on separate pages labeled “2-A,” “2-

B,” etc., at the bottom. Insert the additional page(s) immediately behind page 2.

Part B. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS:

You must identify any other lawsuit you have filed in either state or federal court while you

were a prisoner. Print all of the requested information about each lawsuit in the spaces provided.

If you have filed more than three lawsuits, you must provide the necessary information about each

additional lawsuit on a separate page. Label the page(s) as “2-A,” “2-B,” etc., at the bottom of the

page and insert the additional page(s) immediately behind page 2.

Part C. CAUSE OF ACTION:

You must identify what rights each defendant violated. The form provides space to allege

three separate counts (one violation per count). If you are alleging more than three counts, you

must provide the necessary information about each additional count on a separate page. Number

the additional pages “5-A,” “5-B,” etc., and insert them immediately behind page 5. Remember that

you are limited to a total of fifteen additional pages.

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 18 of 25
4

1. Counts. You must identify which civil right was violated. You may allege the violation

of only one civil right per count.

2. Issue Involved. Check the box that most closely identifies the issue involved in your

claim. You may check only one box per count. If you check the box marked “Other,” you

must identify the specific issue involved.

3. Supporting Facts. After you have identified which civil right was violated, you must state

the supporting facts. Be as specific as possible. You must state what each individual

defendant did to violate your rights. If there is more than one defendant, you must identify

which defendant did what act. You also should state the date(s) on which the act(s)

occurred, if possible.

4. Injury. State precisely how you were injured by the alleged violation of your rights. 

5. Administrative Remedies. You must exhaust any available administrative remedies

before you file a civil rights complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Consequently, you should

disclose whether you have exhausted the inmate grievance procedures or administrative

appeals for each count in your complaint. If the grievance procedures were not available for

any of your counts, fully explain why on the lines provided.

Part D. REQUEST FOR RELIEF:

Print the relief you are seeking in the space provided. 

SIGNATURE:

You must sign your name and print the date you signed the complaint. Failure to sign the

complaint will delay the processing of your action. Unless you are an attorney, you may not bring

an action on behalf of anyone but yourself.

FINAL NOTE

You should follow these instructions carefully. Failure to do so may result in your complaint

being stricken or dismissed. All questions must be answered concisely in the proper space on the

form. If you need more space, you may attach no more than fifteen additional pages. But the form

must be completely filled in to the extent applicable. If you attach additional pages, be sure to

identify which section of the complaint is being continued and number the pages.

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 19 of 25
Revised 5/1/2013 1 550/555

Name and Prisoner/Booking Number

Place of Confinement

Mailing Address

City, State, Zip Code

(Failure to notify the Court of your change of address may result in dismissal of this action.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

)

 , )

(Full Name of Plaintiff) Plaintiff, )

)

 vs. ) CASE NO. 

) (To be supplied by the Clerk)

(1) , )

(Full Name of Defendant) )

(2) , )

) CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

(3) ,) BY A PRISONER

)

(4) , ) G Original Complaint

Defendant(s). ) G First Amended Complaint

G Check if there are additional Defendants and attach page 1-A listing them. ) G Second Amended Complaint

A. JURISDICTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to:

G 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a); 42 U.S.C. § 1983

G 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

G Other: .

2. Institution/city where violation occurred: .

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 20 of 25
2

B. DEFENDANTS

1. Name of first Defendant: . The first Defendant is employed as:

at .

(Position and Title) (Institution)

2. Name of second Defendant: . The second Defendant is employed as:

at .

(Position and Title) (Institution)

3. Name of third Defendant: . The third Defendant is employed as:

at .

(Position and Title) (Institution)

4. Name of fourth Defendant: . The fourth Defendant is employed as:

at .

(Position and Title) (Institution)

If you name more than four Defendants, answer the questions listed above for each additional Defendant on a separate page.

C. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS

1. Have you filed any other lawsuits while you were a prisoner? G Yes G No

2. If yes, how many lawsuits have you filed? . Describe the previous lawsuits:

a. First prior lawsuit:

1. Parties: v. 

2. Court and case number: .

3. Result: (Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed? Is it still pending?)

.

b. Second prior lawsuit:

1. Parties: v. 

2. Court and case number: .

3. Result: (Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed? Is it still pending?)

.

c. Third prior lawsuit:

1. Parties: v. 

2. Court and case number: .

3. Result: (Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed? Is it still pending?)

.

If you filed more than three lawsuits, answer the questions listed above for each additional lawsuit on a separate page.

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 21 of 25
3

D. CAUSE OF ACTION

COUNT I

1. State the constitutional or other federal civil right that was violated: 

.

2. Count I. Identify the issue involved. Check only one. State additional issues in separate counts.

G Basic necessities G Mail G Access to the court G Medical care 

G Disciplinary proceedings G Property G Exercise of religion G Retaliation

G Excessive force by an officer G Threat to safety G Other: .

3. Supporting Facts. State as briefly as possible the FACTS supporting Count I. Describe exactly what each

Defendant did or did not do that violated your rights. State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal

authority or arguments.

.

4. Injury. State how you were injured by the actions or inactions of the Defendant(s).

.

5. Administrative Remedies:

a. Are there any administrative remedies (grievance procedures or administrative appeals) available at your

institution? G Yes G No

b. Did you submit a request for administrative relief on Count I? G Yes G No

c. Did you appeal your request for relief on Count I to the highest level? G Yes G No

d. If you did not submit or appeal a request for administrative relief at any level, briefly explain why you

did not. 

.

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 22 of 25
4

COUNT II

1. State the constitutional or other federal civil right that was violated: 

.

2. Count II. Identify the issue involved. Check only one. State additional issues in separate counts.

G Basic necessities G Mail G Access to the court G Medical care 

G Disciplinary proceedings G Property G Exercise of religion G Retaliation

G Excessive force by an officer G Threat to safety G Other: .

3. Supporting Facts. State as briefly as possible the FACTS supporting Count II. Describe exactly what each

Defendant did or did not do that violated your rights. State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal

authority or arguments.

.

4. Injury. State how you were injured by the actions or inactions of the Defendant(s).

.

5. Administrative Remedies.

a. Are there any administrative remedies (grievance procedures or administrative appeals) available at your

institution? G Yes G No

b. Did you submit a request for administrative relief on Count II? G Yes G No

c. Did you appeal your request for relief on Count II to the highest level? G Yes G No

d. If you did not submit or appeal a request for administrative relief at any level, briefly explain why you

did not. 

.

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 23 of 25
5

COUNT III

1. State the constitutional or other federal civil right that was violated: 

.

2. Count III. Identify the issue involved. Check only one. State additional issues in separate counts.

G Basic necessities G Mail G Access to the court G Medical care 

G Disciplinary proceedings G Property G Exercise of religion G Retaliation

G Excessive force by an officer G Threat to safety G Other: .

3. Supporting Facts. State as briefly as possible the FACTS supporting Count III. Describe exactly what each

Defendant did or did not do that violated your rights. State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal

authority or arguments.

.

4. Injury. State how you were injured by the actions or inactions of the Defendant(s).

.

5. Administrative Remedies.

a. Are there any administrative remedies (grievance procedures or administrative appeals) available at your

institution? G Yes G No

b. Did you submit a request for administrative relief on Count III? G Yes G No

c. Did you appeal your request for relief on Count III to the highest level? G Yes G No

d. If you did not submit or appeal a request for administrative relief at any level, briefly explain why you

did not. 

.

If you assert more than three Counts, answer the questions listed above for each additional Count on a separate page.

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 24 of 25
6

E. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

State the relief you are seeking:

.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on 

DATE SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF

(Name and title of paralegal, legal assistant, or

other person who helped prepare this complaint)

(Signature of attorney, if any)

(Attorney’s address & telephone number)

ADDITIONAL PAGES

All questions must be answered concisely in the proper space on the form. If you need more space, you may attach

no more than fifteen additional pages. But the form must be completely filled in to the extent applicable. If you

attach additional pages, be sure to identify which section of the complaint is being continued and number all pages.

Case 2:13-cv-00572-DJH--JFM Document 16 Filed 07/08/14 Page 25 of 25