Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00880/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00880-1/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

1

Many inmates apparently believe that they will receive an immediate payout from a fund

established in Hart v. Hill, No. CV 77-0479-PHX-EHC (MS) (D. Ariz.). No such fund exists. The

inmates in Hart asked for injunctive relief and not monetary damages. The Court at this time

expresses no opinion on whether Plaintiff’s lawsuit may result in an award of damages.

- 1 -

RP

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph M. Malo,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-880-PHX-DGC (JCG)

ORDER

On March 27, 2006, Plaintiff Joseph M. Malo, confined in the Maricopa County

Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc.

#1). This action is one of more than 1,000 lawsuits filed in this district since September 2004

alleging that the overcrowded conditions in the Maricopa County jail system have resulted

in a variety of constitutional violations.1

Plaintiff did not pay the $250.00 filing fee, but filed a certified Application to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis and Inmate Account Statement with the Complaint. By Order filed May

Case 2:06-cv-00880-DGC--JCG Document 7 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

22, 2006 (Doc. #3), Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed was granted, and Plaintiff was

obligated to pay the $250.00 statutory filing fee for this action. Plaintiff was assessed an

initial partial filing fee of $8.75.

The Order also dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff

was given 30 days from the filing date of the Order to file a first amended complaint in

compliance with the Court’s Order.

On June 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. #6) (Amended

Complaint). The Court will dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The Court is required to screen complaints and amended complaints brought by

prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion

thereof if 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). 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 the complaint before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203

F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court is required to grant leave to amend

“if a complaint can possibly be saved” but not if the Complaint “lacks merit entirely.” Id.

at 1129. A court therefore should grant leave to amend if the pleading could be cured by the

allegation of other facts or if it appears at all possible that the defect can be corrected. Id. at

1130. 

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 court was required to inform litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend, because the

Case 2:06-cv-00880-DGC--JCG Document 7 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Amended Complaint cannot be saved by further amendment.

II. Amended Complaint

In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges two counts. In Count I, he claims that

when he and his roommate were not getting along, he made repeated requests to be separated

for safety reasons. Nothing was done. He and his roommate had a dispute that resulted in

Plaintiff suffering head, neck and chest injuries. Plaintiff asserts that in “Hart vs Hill 103,”

detention officers must be in a position to respond to calls for help. In Count II, Plaintiff

claims that the guidelines in “Hart vs Hill. page 3" were violated when he was “denied a

dayroom free of Pretrial Detainees housed in the dayroom.”

Named as Defendants in the Amended Complaint are: (1) Joseph M. Arpaio,

Maricopa County Sheriff; (2) “Unknown Captain,” Jail Commander at the Maricopa County

Lower Buckeye Jail; and (3) “Unknown Detention Officers 1-1000,” Detention Officers at

the Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail.

Plaintiff seeks money damages.

III. Dismissal of Amended Complaint Without Leave to Amend

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is virtually identical to his original Complaint; it

appears that Plaintiff simply re-wrote his original Complaint and re-filed it as an Amended

Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for the same reasons discussed

in the Court’s May 22, 2006 Order (Doc. #3), and the Amended Complaint must be

dismissed.

Because Plaintiff made no effort to amend his claims in accordance with the Court’s

May 22, 2006 Order, the dismissal of the Amended Complaint will be without leave to

amend, and the Court will order that the action be dismissed and judgment entered. See

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996) (the

Court’s discretion to deny or grant leave to amend is particularly broad where Plaintiff has

previously been permitted to amend his complaint); Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc.,

885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989) (failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments is

Case 2:06-cv-00880-DGC--JCG Document 7 Filed 09/26/06 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

one of the factors to be considered in deciding whether justice requires granting leave to

amend).

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) The First Amended Complaint (Doc. #6) and this action are dismissed for failure

to state a claim, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 

(2) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the dismissal

for failure to state a claim counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DATED this 25th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00880-DGC--JCG Document 7 Filed 09/26/06 Page 4 of 4