Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00221/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00221-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 whether Plaintiff’s lawsuit may result in an award of

damages. 

TERMPSREF

LMH

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Elliot Roberts, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department, 

et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0221-PHX-DGC (LOA)

ORDER

This is one of more than one thousand civil rights actions filed since September 2004

by Maricopa County Jail inmates.1

 Plaintiff is an inmate at the Lower Buckeye Jail in

Phoenix, Arizona. The Court will require Defendant Arpaio to answer Count I of the

Complaint. Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department will be dismissed with

prejudice. Counts II and III will be dismissed without prejudice.

A. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis & Filing Fee

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of

Case 2:06-cv-00221-DGC-LOA Document 4 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 8
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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

$250.00 for this action. An initial partial filing fee of $1.80 will be assessed by this Order.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the Court will direct the appropriate agency to

collect the initial partial filing fee from Plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk

of Court.

Plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding

month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s trust account. The Court will direct the appropriate

agency to collect these monthly payments, which will be forwarded to the Clerk of Court

each time the amount in Plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Plaintiff should take notice that if he is released before the filing fee

is paid in full, he must pay the remaining unpaid amount of the filing fee within 120 days of

the date of his release. If Plaintiff fails to pay the remainder of the filing fee within 120 days

of the date of his release, the action will be dismissed, unless Plaintiff shows good cause, in

writing, why he is unable to pay the remainder of the filing fee.

B. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

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.

§ 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). 

C. Complaint

In his Complaint Plaintiff sets forth three counts for relief regarding conditions at the

Durango and Towers Jails. Plaintiff sues the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department and

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio. 

At the outset, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department is not a proper Defendant.

In Arizona, the responsibility of operating jails and caring for prisoners is placed by law upon

the sheriff. See A.R.S. § 11-441(A)(5); A.R.S. § 31-101. A sheriff’s office is simply an

administrative creation of the county sheriff to allow him to carry out his statutory duties, and

Case 2:06-cv-00221-DGC-LOA Document 4 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 8
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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

not a “person” amenable to suit pursuant to § 1983. Accordingly, the Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Department will be dismissed from this action.

1. Count I

In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted by other inmates who were frustrated

by the overcrowded conditions. Plaintiff also alleges that the bathroom conditions were

unsanitary. He fell in the bathroom and was injured, causing blindness in his left eye. He

was also caught the flu several times from being exposed to other sick inmates. Plaintiff

further alleges that Defendant Joseph Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriff, is liable because

he controls the health, safety and housing of pretrial detainees. These allegations adequately

state a claim, and the Court will require Defendant Arpaio to answer Count I of the

Complaint.

2. Count II

In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that he requested assistance in filling out legal forms such

as the civil rights complaint form. He was either told to ask a lawyer or he was not given a

response at all. He does not assert why he needed help to fill out the forms, i.e., whether he

simply wanted legal advice or whether he is illiterate or non-English speaking. Plaintiff does

assert that “I am only left to believe that M.C.S.O. is prejudiced.” (Compl. at 5.) He does

not, however, identify the type of prejudice, e.g., whether his race was the basis for the

alleged mistreatment or simply his status as an inmate or some other reason. Plaintiff further

asserts that if a “real” law library were provided, he and other inmates would be able to

defend themselves against the everyday abuse by staff.

Plaintiff’s allegations are most appropriately considered as a claim of denial of access

to the courts for civil rights claims. It is well established that inmates have a constitutional

right of access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). This right

prohibits officials from actively interfering with inmates’ attempts to prepare or file legal

documents. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996). The right “guarantees no particular

methodology but rather, the conferral of a capability – the capability of bringing

contemplated challenges to sentences or conditions of confinement before the courts.” Id.

Case 2:06-cv-00221-DGC-LOA Document 4 Filed 03/22/06 Page 3 of 8
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

TERMPSREF - 4 -

at 356. Thus, prison libraries and legal assistance programs are not “ends in themselves,” as

there is no “abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance.” Id. at 351.

Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff solely alleges that he is entitled to a law library or

some form of legal assistance, his claim fails.

Instead, denial of use of the law library or other legal assistance is only actionable if

there has been a claim of actual prejudice to an existing or future legal action. Lewis, 518

U.S. at 351-53. Actual prejudice means that the conduct of the defendants prevented an

inmate from bringing to court a nonfrivolous claim in a direct or collateral attack on his

sentence, or a challenge to the conditions of his confinement. Id. at 352-53, 355. Actual

prejudice includes conduct which causes the inmate to fail to meet a filing deadline or present

a claim. Id. at 348; see also Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The

right of access is designed to ensure that a habeas petition or civil rights complaint of a

person in state custody will reach a court for consideration.”) Plaintiff’s allegations are too

vague to show that he has suffered actual prejudice because he has not alleged how the lack

of a law library or legal assistance prevented him from bringing a nonfrivolous civil rights

claim regarding the conditions of his confinement.

To the extent that Plaintiff wishes to raise an equal protection claim based on the

denial of assistance in preparing legal documents, his allegations are too conclusory. To state

a claim for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, plaintiff must show that the defendants

acted with 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), cert. denied,

525 U.S. 1154 (1999). It is unclear what Plaintiff means when he asserts that the staff was

prejudiced against him.

Finally, Plaintiff has failed to connect this claim to Defendant Arpaio in any manner.

Officials are subject to suit under § 1983 only if “they play an affirmative part in the alleged

deprivation of constitutional rights.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1987).

Plaintiff has not alleged how Defendant Arpaio was involved in the denial of access to a law

library or other legal assistance. Consequently, Count II will be dismissed without prejudice.

Case 2:06-cv-00221-DGC-LOA Document 4 Filed 03/22/06 Page 4 of 8
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

TERMPSREF - 5 -

3. Count III

In Count III, Plaintiff alleges that there were no privacy walls around the toilets, and

he has been embarrassed because he has had to use the restroom in front of other people.

Inmates have a “right to bodily privacy.” Sepulveda v. Ramirez, 967 F.2d 1413, 1415 (9th

Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 931 (1993). This right, however, may be restricted to

further the jail’s “chief objective” of internal security, which is a legitimate goal of the

correctional system. Grummett v. Rushen, 779 F.2d 491, 493 (9th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff bears

the burden of pleading and proving the absence of legitimate correctional goals for the

conduct of which he complains. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1289 (9th Cir. 2003)

(quotation omitted). The jail has an obvious security interest in not providing dividers or

stalls in the bathrooms. More importantly, Plaintiff has not attempted to allege the absence

of a legitimate correctional goal. 

Plaintiff further alleges in his prayer for relief that female officers are able to observe

him using the restroom. He has not, however, named any of these officers as Defendants.

Instead, the sole Defendant is Sheriff Arpaio. The actions of the female officers may support

liability against Sheriff Arpaio only if the officers were acting pursuant to official policy or

custom set forth by Apraio. See Botello v. Gammick, 413 F.3d 971, 978-79 (9th Cir. 2005);

Cortez v. County of Los Angeles, 294 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2001). Also, Plaintiff must

allege, as a matter of law, that the policy or custom caused him to suffer constitutional injury.

Sadosky v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1080 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff has not alleged that

Defendant Arpaio has a policy or custom of allowing female officers to observe male inmates

while they use the restroom. Also, it is not reasonable to infer that such a policy or custom

exists from Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant Arpaio is in control of the jails.

Accordingly, Count III will be dismissed without prejudice. 

D. Rule 41 Cautionary Notice

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

this Order, or any order entered in this matter, this action will be dismissed pursuant to Rule

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-

Case 2:06-cv-00221-DGC-LOA Document 4 Filed 03/22/06 Page 5 of 8
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

TERMPSREF - 6 -

61 (9th Cir.) (district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any order of the

Court), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

(2) Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for this action. An

initial partial filing fee in the amount of $1.80 is assessed. All fees shall be collected and

paid in accordance with this Court=s Order to the appropriate government agency filed

concurrently herewith.

(3) Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department is dismissed. Counts II and

III are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff a service packet

including the Complaint, this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for

Defendant Arpaio.

(4) Plaintiff shall complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court within

20 days of the date of filing of this Order. The United States Marshal will not provide

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

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

service of the Summons and Complaint on each Defendant within 120 days of the filing of

the 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 pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i). 

(6) The United States Marshal shall retain the Summons, a copy of the Complaint,

and a copy of this Order for future use.

(7) The United States Marshal shall notify Defendant 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 Defendant shall include a copy of this Order. The

Marshal shall file waivers of service of the summons or requests for waivers that were

returned as undeliverable as soon as they are received. If a waiver of service of summons

Case 2:06-cv-00221-DGC-LOA Document 4 Filed 03/22/06 Page 6 of 8
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

TERMPSREF - 7 -

is not returned by a Defendant within thirty days from the date the request for waiver was

sent by the Marshal, the Marshal shall:

(a) Personally serve copies of the Summons, Complaint, and this Order upon the

Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

(b) Within 10 days after personal service is effected, file the return of service for

the Defendant, 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 the

Defendant. The costs of service shall be enumerated on the return of service form

(USM-285) and shall include the costs incurred by the Marshal for photocopying

additional copies of the Summons, 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 defendant pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) and (5) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

(8) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and Complaint

shall return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, not the Plaintiff.

(9) Defendant shall answer Count I of the 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.

(10) Any answer or responsive pleading shall state the specific Defendant(s) by name

on whose behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, responsive pleading, or other

motion or paper that does not identify the specific Defendant(s) by name on whose behalf

it is filed.

(11) Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant, or if appearance has been entered by

counsel, upon counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted for

consideration by the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original document and copy, to

be filed with the Clerk of the Court, a certificate stating the date a true and correct copy of

the pleading or document was mailed to Defendant or counsel. Any paper received by a

Case 2:06-cv-00221-DGC-LOA Document 4 Filed 03/22/06 Page 7 of 8
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

TERMPSREF - 8 -

District Court Judge or Magistrate Judge which has not been filed with the Clerk of Court

may be disregarded by the Court.

(12) At all times during the pendency of this action, Plaintiff shall immediately advise

the Court and the United States Marshal of any change of address and its effective date.

Such notice shall be captioned “NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.” The notice shall

contain only information pertaining to the change of address and its effective date. Plaintiff

shall serve a copy of the notice on all opposing parties. The notice shall not include any

motions for any other relief. Failure to file a Notice of Change of Address may result in the

dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. 

(13) A clear, legible copy of every pleading or other document filed shall accompany

each original pleading or other document filed with the Clerk for use by the District Judge

or Magistrate Judge to whom the case is assigned. Failure to comply with this requirement

may result in the pleading or document being stricken without further notice to Plaintiff. 

(14) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson under Local

Rules of Civil Procedure 72.1 and 72.2 for further proceedings.

DATED this 20th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00221-DGC-LOA Document 4 Filed 03/22/06 Page 8 of 8