Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01412/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01412-1/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

TERMPSREF 28

WO BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jay Pember, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora Schrivo, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1412-PHX-SMM (BPV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Jay Pember, currently confined in the Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail

in Buckeye, Arizona, has filed a pro se Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court

orders that the action be served on Defendants Schwartz and Yielding, and that the remaining

claims and Defendants 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

$250.00 for this action. No initial partial filing fee 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

monthly payments of twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month’s income credited to

Plaintiff’s trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency 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

Case 2:05-cv-01412-SMM Document 4 Filed 10/25/05 Page 1 of 9
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 -

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.

Plaintiff names as Defendants: (1) Dora Schrivo, Director of the Arizona Department

of Corrections, (2) Deputy Warden Edwards, (3) Myers, counsel at the Central Office in

Phoenix, (4) Captain Conger, (5) Captain Yielding, (6) Sergeant Lopez, (7) Correctional

Officer Schwartz, and (8) Unnamed John Does. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of

action.

Count I

Plaintiff alleges that while he was eating dinner in the chow hall, Department of

Corrections ("DOC") staff released a chemical agent. As a result, Plaintiff was forced to

leave the chow hall, and upon his exit he was fired upon by an officer in the gun tower.

Plaintiff then was verbally assaulted, sprayed with a chemical agent, and shoved against a

fence. Plaintiff further alleges that he subsequently was falsely charged and sentenced to

administrative segregation, where he has remained for the last 15 months. Plaintiff alleges

that the DOC staff provoked the incident and abused the prisoners, and then falsely charged

many of the prisoners to cover up their actions.

Count II

Plaintiff alleges that after he exited the chow hall, Defendant Schwartz sprayed him

Case 2:05-cv-01412-SMM Document 4 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 9
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 -

in the face with a chemical agent and shoved him against the fence. Plaintiff further alleges

that another unknown person sprayed him a second time and as he was lying in the dirt

handcuffed, Defendant Yielding placed his foot in Plaintiff’s ribs, asked him if he liked the

pepper spray, and threatened to continue to abuse him after Plaintiff did a couple years in

segregation. Plaintiff also alleges that the officer in the gun tower shot into the group of

prisoners, injuring him.

Count III

Plaintiff alleges that he was improperly convicted of assaulting a staff member and

that during the disciplinary hearing, Defendant Conger denied him any opportunity to answer

the charges. In particular, Defendant Conger refused to listen to Plaintiff’s claims of

innocence and refused to consider the photographic evidence Plaintiff presented on his

behalf.

Count IV

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Schwartz and Yielding filed a false disciplinary

report and witness statement against Plaintiff. As a result, he was found guilty at the

disciplinary hearing and suffered a loss of good time credit and was sentenced to

administrative segregation (where he has remained for the last fifteen months).

Count V

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Schrivo, Edwards, and Myers were notified through

the disciplinary appeal of the false charges against Plaintiff, the denial of due process, and

Plaintiff’s claim of innocence, but disregarded Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff alleges that the

officials should have recognized and corrected these violations.

Count VI

Plaintiff alleges that the parties conspired to “‘obstruct’ the due course of ‘justice’”

because they were aware of his innocence and intentionally withheld evidence and conspired

to find him guilty of the charges against him. In particular, Plaintiff contends that the DOC

staff conspired against Plaintiff when they positively identified him on the video as the

person assaulting Defendant Schwartz.

Case 2:05-cv-01412-SMM Document 4 Filed 10/25/05 Page 3 of 9
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 -

Plaintiff requests a reversal of the disciplinary sanctions and monetary damages.

D. Failure to State a Claim.

1. Disciplinary Procedures

A claim may not be brought in a § 1983 action if “the nature of the challenge to the

procedures [used in a disciplinary hearing] could be such as necessarily to imply the

invalidity of the [decision].” Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645 (1997). If a judgment

in favor of Plaintiff regarding denial of due process would invalidate deprivation of good

time credits, the claim is barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), unless

plaintiff can show the outcome of the proceeding has been overturned. Edwards, 520 U.S.

at 647-48.

In Counts III, IV, V, and VI, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Schwartz and Yielding

filed false reports and statements against him, Defendant Conger refused to allow him to

introduce favorable evidence and argue his case, Defendants Schrivo, Edwards, and Myers

refused to reverse the disciplinary result, and all the parties conspired to convict him.

Plaintiff contends that as a result of these actions, Plaintiff lost good time credits and was

placed in administrative segregation for at least 15 months. A judgment as to Counts III, IV,

V, VI would invalidate the results of the disciplinary hearing in which Plaintiff lost good

time credit. As a result, Counts III, IV, V, and VI are not cognizable in a § 1983 action and

will be dismissed.

2. Count I

To state a valid constitutional claim, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered specific

injury as a result of the specific conduct of a defendant, and show an affirmative link between

the injury and the conduct of the defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377

(1976). 

In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that DOC staff released a chemical agent in the chow hall,

verbally assaulted him, and shoved him into a fence. The DOC staff then falsely charged

him and sentenced him for assaulting a correctional official. Plaintiff does not allege that any

specific Defendant did any action as set forth in Count I. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff is

Case 2:05-cv-01412-SMM Document 4 Filed 10/25/05 Page 4 of 9
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 -

alleging that a Defendant used excessive force against him, he must specify the individual

who used the force. However, to the extent Plaintiff is challenging the disciplinary

procedures, as discussed above, Plaintiff’s challenge is barred under Heck.

3. Defendants

Plaintiff fails to allege any facts as to how Defendant Lopez allegedly violated his

constitutional rights. Accordingly, Defendant Lopez will be dismissed from this action. As

stated above, Plaintiff fails to set forth a cognizable action against Defendants Schrivo,

Edwards, Myers, or Conger. Accordingly, those Defendants will be dismissed from this

action.

E. Claims For Which An Answer Will be Required.

Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that Defendants Schwartz, Yielding, an unknown officer

outside the chow hall, and an unknown officer in the gun tower used excessive force against

him. Defendants Schwartz and Yielding will be required to answer Count II.

Plaintiff, however, has not named all of the Defendants who committed excessive

force against him. Instead, he has named unknown “John Does.” Generally, the use of

anonymous type appellations to identify defendants is not favored. Rule 10(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure requires the plaintiff to include the names of the parties in the

action. As a practical matter, it is impossible in most instances for the United States Marshal

or his designee to serve a summons and complaint or amended complaint upon an

anonymous defendant. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that where identity is unknown prior to the filing of a

complaint, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the

unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that

the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds. Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d

1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)).

Plaintiff may use the discovery processes to obtain the names of the persons whom he

believes violated his constitutional rights. If Plaintiff discovers the true identity of these

fictitious parties through the discovery process, or otherwise, he may seek leave of the Court

Case 2:05-cv-01412-SMM Document 4 Filed 10/25/05 Page 5 of 9
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 -

to amend his complaint to name the individuals in place of Defendants John Doe.

F. Warning of Possible Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41.

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

(9th Cir. 1992) (stating a district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any

order of the Court). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. # 1) 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.

Plaintiff is assessed no initial partial filing fee. All fees shall be collected and paid in

accordance with this Court’s Order to the appropriate government agency filed concurrently

herewith.

(3) Counts I, and III through VI, and Defendants Schrivo, Edwards, Myers, Conger,

and Lopez are dismissed without prejudice.

(4) Defendants Schwartz and Yielding will be required to answer Count II.

(5) The Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff a service packet including the Complaint

(Doc. #1), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for Defendants

Schwartz and Yielding.

(6) 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.

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

service of the Summons and Complaint on the 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

Case 2:05-cv-01412-SMM Document 4 Filed 10/25/05 Page 6 of 9
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 -

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

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

and a copy of this Order for future use.

(9) The United States Marshal shall notify Defendants 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 Defendants 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

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.

(10) 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.

(11) Defendant shall answer 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.

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

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

Case 2:05-cv-01412-SMM Document 4 Filed 10/25/05 Page 7 of 9
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 -

motion or paper that does not identify the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is

filed.

(13) 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

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

may be disregarded by the Court.

(14) 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. 

(15) 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.

(16) This matter is referred to Magistrate Bernardo P. Velasco pursuant to Local

Rules of Civil Procedure 72.1 and 72.2 for further proceedings.

DATED this 21st day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01412-SMM Document 4 Filed 10/25/05 Page 8 of 9
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 - 9 -

Case 2:05-cv-01412-SMM Document 4 Filed 10/25/05 Page 9 of 9