Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01611/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01611-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christopher John Benedetto, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1611-EHC (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #9). On

August 2, 2005, Magistrate Judge Voss issued an Order (Doc. #8) authorizing Plaintiff to file

a Second Amended Complaint, which Plaintiff filed on August 12, 2005. The Second

Amended Complaint (Doc. #9) contains the same four counts as the original Complaint (Doc.

#1) plus additional claims in Count V. This Court issued a Screening Order (Doc. #4)

addressing the original Complaint on June 22, 2005. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's alleged

violations of Hart v. Hill, No. CIV 77-0477-PHX-EHC (D.Ariz.), but found that the

underlying constitutional claims adequately stated a claim and ordered Defendant to answer.

Defendant filed his Answer (Doc. #10) to the original Complaint on September 12, 2005.

Having already screened all but Count V of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, this

screening order will be limited to that count.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against

a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §

Case 2:05-cv-01611-EHC-ECV Document 16 Filed 11/02/05 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 -

1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the 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).

In Count V of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, he alleges that Defendant

Arpaio violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment

when jail personnel failed to provide adequate dental care after one of his teeth broke.

Plaintiff alleges that as a result of his tooth breaking, his gums bled, became infected and

swelled up. He claims that despite repeated requests to jail personnel, more than 60 days

have passed and he still has not received any dental care. Plaintiff does not identify or name

as defendants the individuals who failed to respond to his requests for dental care. However,

in another section, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Arpaio has established policies and

procedures that resulted in the violation of his constitutional rights. The Court therefore

finds that Plaintiff's allegations adequately state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate

indifference to medical needs and an answer will be required. See Monell v. New York City

Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978) (To establish municipal liability, a

plaintiff must go beyond the respondeat superior theory of liability and show that the alleged

constitutional deprivation was the product of a policy or custom of the local governmental

unit.).

Plaintiff also alleges that these same facts establish a violation of Hart v. Hill and a

due process violation. For the same reasons set forth in the initial screening order, Plaintiff

cannot seek to enforce Hart v. Hill in this civil rights action and that claim will be dismissed.

Additionally, Plaintiff's allegations fail to support a due process violation and that claim will

also be dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

That Plaintiff's Hart v. Hill and due process claims in Count V of his Second

Amended Complaint are dismissed;

Case 2:05-cv-01611-EHC-ECV Document 16 Filed 11/02/05 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 -

That, if he has not done so already, Plaintiff shall serve his Second Amended

Complaint pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by mailing a copy to

Defendant's attorney; and

That Defendant shall answer the Second Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days

of the date it is received or the date this order is filed, whichever is later.

DATED this 26th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01611-EHC-ECV Document 16 Filed 11/02/05 Page 3 of 3