Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02212/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02212-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Vera Wathen, surviving spouse and

personal representative of the Estate of

Christopher E. Wathen, deceased, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, Director of Arizona

Department of Corrections, and John Doe

Schriro, her husband; Jerry Sternes and

Jane Doe Sternes, his wife; John Scala and

Jane Doe Scala, his wife; Demetrio Soto

and Jane Doe Soto, his wife; Edith

Martinez and John Doe Martinez, her

husband; John and Jane Doe Officers;

John and Jane Doe Supervisors; John Does

I-X and Jane Does I-X, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2212-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations

in connection with the death of her husband, Christopher E. Wathen, while incarcerated by

the State of Arizona. We have before us defendants Dora Schriro, and Jerry Sternes’s motion

to dismiss the first amended complaint (doc. 22), plaintiff’s response (doc. 25), and

defendants’ reply (doc. 26). 

I

Beginning on December 28, 2005, Christopher Wathen (“Wathen”) was incarcerated

at the Arizona State Prison Complex-Yuma in San Luis, Arizona. On December 4, 2006,

Case 2:08-cv-02212-FJM Document 34 Filed 08/25/09 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 -

Wathen was attacked and beaten by two fellow inmates in the prison yard. He later died

from his injuries. 

Plaintiff is Wathen’s surviving spouse and the personal representative of his estate.

She brings this action against Dora Schriro, Director of the Arizona Department of

Corrections in 2006, Jerry Sternes, warden of the prison, and several correctional officers on

duty at the time Wathen was killed. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a

general claim of “42 U.S.C. § 1983 conspiracy.” Schriro and Sternes (collectively,

“defendants”) move to dismiss for failure to state a claim and on the grounds of qualified

immunity. 

II

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege (1) a violation of a right

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, (2) by a person acting under the

color of state law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006).

The parties do not dispute that, in general, “prison officials have a duty [under the Eighth

Amendment]. . . to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners.” Farmer

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1976 (1994) (quotation omitted).

Nonetheless, defendants argue that plaintiff has failed to state a claim under section 1983

because the complaint does not contain facts alleging that they were personally involved with

any of the events surrounding Wathen’s attack. We agree. 

“[E]ach Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or

her own misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). In particular, “[a]

supervisor 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). Supervisory liability exists

under section 1983 where the supervisor has implemented “a policy so deficient that the

policy ‘itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the

constitutional violation.’” Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir.

Case 2:08-cv-02212-FJM Document 34 Filed 08/25/09 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 -

1991) (quotation omitted). Supervisors are also liable under section 1983 for “their own

culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, or control of subordinates.”

Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1292 (9th Cir. 2000). 

First, plaintiff contends that she has sufficiently alleged that defendants violated her

rights by implementing unconstitutional prison policies. We disagree. The complaint

contains several general allegations that Schriro and Sternes allowed unconstitutional

policies, customs, and conditions that led to Wathen’s death, but does not identify any

specific unconstitutional policies. Amended Complaint ¶¶ 45-49, 51-54. To survive a

motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 579, 127 S. Ct. 1955,

1974 (2007). “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must

be supported by factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009).

Plaintiff’s “threadbare” assertions need not be accepted as true, and are insufficient to state

a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See Id. at 1949. 

In her response brief, plaintiff argues that we should infer from the complaint that

defendants implemented an unconstitutional policy of allowing prisoners to walk through the

yard unescorted. Response at 4. The complaint, however, does not give rise to such an

inference. Instead, the facts alleged in the complaint contradict plaintiff’s assertion, and state

that individual officers violated procedure in allowing inmates to walk through the prison

yard unescorted. Amended Complaint ¶¶ 21-22. Plaintiff has failed to identify a policy

implemented by defendants that was the “moving force” behind any alleged constitutional

violation. 

Second, plaintiff claims that she has plead a section 1983 action against defendants

based on their failure to train and supervise subordinates. Plaintiff, however, offers no facts

to support her assertion and relies only on defendants’ positions as supervisors of the prison

personnel. Response at 5; Amended Complaint ¶¶ 36-37 These conclusory allegations

regarding a failure to train are insufficient to state a claim. See Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct. at 1954

Case 2:08-cv-02212-FJM Document 34 Filed 08/25/09 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 -

(“Rule 8 does not empower respondent to plead the bare elements of his cause of action, affix

the label ‘general allegation,’ and expect his complaint to survive a motion to dismiss.”). 

We conclude, therefore, that plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a

section 1983 claim against Schriro and Sternes.

Defendants also argue that the claims against them must be dismissed because they

are entitled to qualified immunity. “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government

officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

known.’” Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815 (2009) (quotation omitted). We must

consider: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged . . . make out a violation of a

constitutional right;” and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time

of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Id. 816. Failure to satisfy either requirement will result

in a finding that the official is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. Here, as just discussed, the

facts alleged fail to state a claim against Schriro and Sternes for violation of a constitutional

right. We conclude, therefore, that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

III

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Schriro and Sternes’s motion to

dismiss (doc. 22). Plaintiff’s claims against the non-moving defendants, John Scala,

Demetrio Soto, and Edith Martinez, remain. 

DATED this 25th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02212-FJM Document 34 Filed 08/25/09 Page 4 of 4