Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02731/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02731-3/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

JDDL-K

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ramon Ordonez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2731-PHX-RCB (LOA)

ORDER

On December 17, 2010, Plaintiff Ramon Ordonez, who is confined in the Maricopa

County Durango Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a December 27, 2010 Order, the Court

denied the deficient Application to Proceed and gave Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the filing

fee or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

On January 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis. In a January 20, 2011 Order, the Court granted the second Application to Proceed

and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave

Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the

Order. 

On January 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 10). The

Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend.

. . . .

. . . .

Case 2:10-cv-02731-RCB--LOA Document 11 Filed 01/27/11 Page 1 of 6
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

JDDL-K - 2 -

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

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 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does not

demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).

“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice.” Id.

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for

relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial

experience and common sense.” Id. at 1950. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual

allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there

are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 1951.

But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts

must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th

Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent standards

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,

94 (2007) (per curiam)).

Case 2:10-cv-02731-RCB--LOA Document 11 Filed 01/27/11 Page 2 of 6
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

JDDL-K - 3 -

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). 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 the court was

required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be

dismissed for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend because the First Amended

Complaint may possibly be saved by amendment.

II. First Amended Complaint

In his one-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Defendant Maricopa County

Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, alleging that he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of

confinement in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. He claims that, “[d]ue to poor

training that [Defendant] Arpaio gives to his officers,” a transportation officer applied

handcuffs too tightly, causing Plaintiff’s hands to swell, turn blue, and hurt. In his Request

for Relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

III. Failure to State a Claim

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey v.

Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further,

a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the

claim that were not initially pled. Id. 

To state a Fourteenth Amendment claim based on a failure to train, a plaintiff must

allege facts to support that the alleged failure amounted to deliberate indifference. Canell

v. Lightner, 143 F.3d 1210, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998). A plaintiff must allege facts to support that

not only was particular training inadequate, but also that such inadequacy was the result of

“a ‘deliberate’ or ‘conscious’ choice” on the part of the defendant. Id. at 1213-14; see

Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 905 (9th Cir. 2002) (a plaintiff must allege facts to support

Case 2:10-cv-02731-RCB--LOA Document 11 Filed 01/27/11 Page 3 of 6
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

JDDL-K - 4 -

that “in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or employees, the need for more or

different training is [so] obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in violations of

constitutional rights, that the policy[]makers . . . can reasonably be said to have been

deliberately indifferent to the need.” (quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390

(1989))). 

Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegation that Defendant Arpaio provided “poor

training” is insufficient to state a claim against Defendant Arpaio. Thus, the Court will

dismiss Defendant Arpaio and the First Amended Complaint.

IV. Leave to Amend

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may

submit a second amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of

Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a second amended complaint.

If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the second amended

complaint and dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “Second

Amended Complaint.” The second amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its

entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original

Complaint or First Amended Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim

per count. 

A second amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint and First Amended

Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v.

Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will

treat the original Complaint and First Amended Complaint as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d

at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the original Complaint or First Amended

complaint is waived if it is not raised in a second amended complaint. King v. Atiyeh, 814

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

. . . .

Case 2:10-cv-02731-RCB--LOA Document 11 Filed 01/27/11 Page 4 of 6
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

JDDL-K - 5 -

V. 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 a 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

Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See

LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice

to Plaintiff.

D. Possible “Strike”

Because the First Amended Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a claim,

if Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in

this Order, the dismissal may count as a “strike” under the “3-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). Under the 3-strikes provision, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal

a civil judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more

prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal

in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

E. Possible Dismissal

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these

warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at

Case 2:10-cv-02731-RCB--LOA Document 11 Filed 01/27/11 Page 5 of 6
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

JDDL-K - 6 -

1260-61 (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the

Court).

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) The First Amended Complaint (Doc. 10) is dismissed for failure to state a

claim. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a second amended

complaint in compliance with this Order. 

(2) If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk

of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with

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

(3) The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff a court-approved form for filing a civil

rights complaint by a prisoner.

DATED this 27th day of January, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02731-RCB--LOA Document 11 Filed 01/27/11 Page 6 of 6