Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00435/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00435-9/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

Theodore Jacob Jones, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

CO II Benjamin Beckford, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-435-PHX-SRB (LOA)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 97)

On December 9, 2013, the undersigned Magistrate Judge issued an order granting Plaintiff’s

Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, doc. 86, and authorizing Plaintiff to file

a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 95) The December 9, 2013 Order noted that, upon the

filing of the Second Amended Complaint, a service-of-process order would issue regarding

the two newly-named defendants. This is that order.

1. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

A district 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 the plaintiff

has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

The assigned District Judge screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, doc. 9, in

an order issued on June 22, 2012. (Doc. 11) The District Judge determined the First

Case 2:12-cv-00435-DJH Document 98 Filed 01/07/14 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Amended Complaint stated Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force against

Defendants Forbes and Sanchez. (Doc. 11 at 3-4) Plaintiff alleged Corrections Officers

(“CO”) Forbes and Sanchez used excessive force against him when they entered his cell on

July 15, 2011. Plaintiff claims they punched him in the face and body several times, used

handcuffs “like brass knuckles” to strike him, kicked him in the face and body, and knocked

him unconscious. (Doc. 9 at 3-5) 

After discovery revealed the true identities of the prison officers Plaintiff intended to

name as defendants, Plaintiff moved to amend the First Amended Complaint which, as noted

above, was granted. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint does not change the underlying

facts supporting his Eighth Amendment excessive force claims. The only changes are the

identities of the officers against whom the claims are alleged. Specifically, Plaintiff names

CO II Benjamin Beckford in place of Defendant CO II Forbes, and CO II Aurelio SanchezCepeda in place of Defendant A. Sanchez. Because the assigned District Judge has already

determined that Plaintiff’s allegations sufficiently allege Eighth Amendment excessive force

claims, no further screening of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is necessary.

2. 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 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

Because Plaintiff is currently confined in ASPC-Eyman and this case is subject to

Case 2:12-cv-00435-DJH Document 98 Filed 01/07/14 Page 2 of 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

1 If a Defendant is an officer or employee of the Arizona Department of Corrections,

Plaintiff must list the address of the specific institution where the officer or employee works.

Service cannot be effected on an officer or employee at the Central Office of the Arizona

Department of Corrections unless the officer or employee works there.

- 3 -

General Order 13-19, Plaintiff is not required to serve Defendants with a copy of every

document he files or submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court as is

ordinarily required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 and Local Rule (“LRCiv”) 5.4. If

Plaintiff is transferred to a prison other than ASPC-Eyman, he will be notified of the

requirements for service and providing copies for the Court required for inmates whose cases

are not subject to General Order 13-19.

D. Possible Dismissal

Plaintiff should take note that if he fails to timely comply with every provision of this

Order, this action may be dismissed without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with

any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Defendants Beckford and Sanchez-Cepeda must answer the Second Amended

Complaint. 

(2) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including the Second

Amended Complaint, this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for

Defendants Beckford and Sanchez-Cepeda.

(3) Plaintiff must complete1

 and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court within

21 days of the date this Order is filed. The United States Marshal Service will not provide

service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order.

(4) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or complete

service of the Summons and Second Amended Complaint on a Defendant within 120 days

of the filing of the Second Amended Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of this Order,

whichever is later, the action may be dismissed as to each Defendant not served.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m); LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i).

Case 2:12-cv-00435-DJH Document 98 Filed 01/07/14 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

(5) The United States Marshal Service must retain the Summons, a copy of the Second

Amended Complaint, and a copy of this Order for future use.

(6) The United States Marshal Service must notify Defendants 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 United States Marshal Service must immediately file signed waivers of

service of the summons. If a waiver of service of summons is returned as undeliverable

or it is not returned by a Defendant within 30 days from the date the request for waiver

was sent by the United States Marshal Service, the United States Marshal Service must:

(a) personally serve copies of the Summons, Second Amended Complaint and this

Order upon Defendants 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

Defendants, 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 Defendants. The costs of

service must be enumerated on the return of service form (USM-285) and must include the

costs incurred by the United States Marshal Service for photocopying additional copies of

the Summons, Second 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 Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

(7) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and Second

Amended Complaint must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal,

Service, not the Plaintiff.

(8) Defendants must answer the Second 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.

(9) Any answer or response must state the specific Defendant(s) by name on whose

behalf it is filed. The Court may strike an answer, response, or other motion or paper that

Case 2:12-cv-00435-DJH Document 98 Filed 01/07/14 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

does not identify the specific Defendant(s) by name on whose behalf it is filed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any unrepresented party must comply

with the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

(“Local Rules”), as amended on December 1, 2013. The District’s Local Rules may be found

on the District Court’s internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/. All other rules may be

found at www.uscourts.gov/rules/. The fact that a party is acting pro se does not discharge

a party’s duties to “abide by the rules of the court in which he litigates.” Carter v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986). 

DATED this 7th day of January, 2014.

Case 2:12-cv-00435-DJH Document 98 Filed 01/07/14 Page 5 of 5