Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00148/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00148-2/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

 “Doc.#” refers to the docket number of documents filed in this case.

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jerime Antwon Proctor, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-148-PHX-MHM (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Jerime Antwon Proctor, who is confined in the Arizona Department of

Corrections, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding events

during his confinement in the Maricopa County Jail. (Doc.# 1.)1

 The Court dismissed

Plaintiff’s Complaint and subsequent First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim,

but granted him a final opportunity to amend. (Doc.# 9.) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s

motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which the Court will grant. (Doc.# 11.)

Because Plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiencies identified in his prior complaints, the

Court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and this action. 

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

Case 2:06-cv-00148-MHM--LOA Document 13 Filed 11/03/06 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 -

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 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 a complaint

before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000)

(en banc). However, leave to amend need not be given if a complaint, as amended, is subject

to dismissal. Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). The

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

previously been permitted to amend his complaint. See Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v.

United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996). Failure to cure deficiencies by previous

amendments is a factor to be considered in deciding whether justice requires granting leave

to amend. Moore, 885 F.2d at 538. 

II. Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that he was denied constitutionally adequate medical care as an

inmate in the Fourth Avenue Jail. He sues Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, Mary

Rose Wilcox, a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and Maricopa County

Correctional Health Service. 

Plaintiff alleges the following facts. While an inmate at the Fourth Avenue Jail, the

Jail dental clinic extracted two of Plaintiff’s teeth. A few days later, Plaintiff noticed

swelling in his lower jaw and “constantly” complained and filed tank orders as the swelling

and pain increased. Seven or eight days later, he finally saw a nurse, who told him the

swelling was not normal and that he needed “serious medical attention.” Plaintiff alleges this

nurse told him that she had to “beg” unidentified persons before she finally was able to have

Plaintiff transported to the hospital, where he required surgery to drain the infection.

Plaintiff alleges that one of the doctors informed him that he could have died if he had not

Case 2:06-cv-00148-MHM--LOA Document 13 Filed 11/03/06 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

- 3 -

arrived at the hospital when he did. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for the scar and

his pain and suffering. 

III. Failure to State a Claim

“To sustain an action under section 1983, a plaintiff must show (1) that the conduct

complained of was committed by a person acting under the color of state law; and (2) that

the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.” Wood v.

Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989). For a person 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). 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 v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.

1989). Further, “[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that 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). 

As the Court stated in its previous Orders, to state a claim regarding medical care, a

plaintiff must allege facts that, if proven, would establish that a defendant acted with

deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s serious medical needs. (Doc.# 4 at 3, 9 at 3-4.) The

Court stated that:

To act with deliberate indifference, the defendant must both know of and

disregard an excessive risk to inmate health; the official must both be aware

of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of

serious harm exists and he must also draw the inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). In the medical context, deliberate indifference in

the medical context may be shown by a purposeful act or failure to respond to

a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and harm caused by the

indifference. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. Indifference may be shown when an

official denies, delays, or intentionally interferes with treatment, or it may be

shown by the way in which medical professionals provide the care. Id.

(Id.) 

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s prior complaints as to Sheriff Arpaio because Plaintiff

failed to set forth any facts to support that Arpaio was aware of, much less personally

participated in, any violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights or that Arpaio established a policy,

Case 2:06-cv-00148-MHM--LOA Document 13 Filed 11/03/06 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 -

practice or custom that resulted in a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. In his

Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff again fails to set forth any facts to support that Arpaio

was aware of and personally participated in the events about which Plaintiff complains.

Similarly, Plaintiff fails to set forth any facts to support that Arpaio established a policy,

practice or custom that resulted in a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

Plaintiff similarly fails to cure the deficiencies of his prior complaints with respect to

Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox. Plaintiff merely realleges that Wilcox was

“grossly negligent and or learned of problems and failed to fix situation; and or created a

custom or policy allowing or encouraging the illegal acts.” (Doc.# 12 at 2.) As the Court

previously stated, an allegation that Wilcox knew of but failed to correct “problems,” that she

was “grossly negligent” or that she created a custom or policy allowing or encouraging

“illegal acts” is conclusory and unsupported by allegations of fact. Plaintiff again fails to

identify the custom or policy created by Wilcox that allowed or encouraged any illegal act

or the connection between such policy and the harm Plaintiff alleges that he suffered as a

consequence. 

Finally, although Plaintiff includes Maricopa County Correctional Health Services in

the caption of his Second Amended Complaint, he does not list it as a defendant on page 2

of his Second Amended Complaint. Further, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts supporting

liability against it. 

In this case, Plaintiff has had two opportunities to cure deficiencies in his complaints

but has failed to do so after being informed about them. For that reason, his Second

Amended Complaint will be dismissed without leave to amend.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (doc.# 11) is

granted.

(2) The Second Amended Complaint (doc.# 12) and this action are dismissed for

failure to state a claim. 

Case 2:06-cv-00148-MHM--LOA Document 13 Filed 11/03/06 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 -

(3) The Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with

prejudice that states that the dismissal counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00148-MHM--LOA Document 13 Filed 11/03/06 Page 5 of 5