Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03326/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03326-0/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

 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 t his t ime

expresses no opinion on whether Plaintiff’s lawsuit may result in an award of damages. 

TERMPSREF

WO BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph Sallomi, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3326-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Joseph Sallomi, currently confined in the Maricopa County Lower Buckeye

Jail in Phoenix, Arizona, has filed a pro se Complaint pursuant to § 1983.1

 This action is

one of more than one thousand lawsuits filed in this district since September 2004 alleging

that the overcrowded conditions in the Maricopa County jail system have resulted in a

variety of constitutional violations. The Court will order that the action be served upon

Defendant Arpaio.. 

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 st at ut ory filing fee of

$250.00 for this action. An initial partial filing fee of $5.00 will be assessed by this Order.

Case 2:05-cv-03326-DGC-ECV Document 3 Filed 11/03/05 Page 1 of 7
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 -

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

collect the init ial p artial filing fee from Plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk

of Court. Thereafter, Plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of 20 percent of the

p receding month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s trust account. These payments will be

forwarded by the appropriate agency t o t he 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 t he 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 p ortion thereof if the Plaintiff has raised

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim up on 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 a Defendant Joseph Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa Count y , alleging

that he has created procedures and trained personnel. Plaintiff argues that his

constitutional rights were violated by (1) overcrowding resulting in an inability to eat meals

in a timely fashion, (2) denial of visit at ion, and (3) unsanitary conditions in the food service

area. Plaintiff seeks monetary and other relief.

D. Failure to State a Claim.

1. Hart v. Hill

Throughout his Complaint, Plaintiff refers to Hart v. Hill, No. CIV 77-0479-PHX-EHC

(D. Ariz.), claiming that the conditions of his confinement violated an Amended Judgment

Case 2:05-cv-03326-DGC-ECV Document 3 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 7
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 that act ion. Jurisdiction to enforce the judgment is retained by the court which entered

it. Jeff D. v. Kempt horne, 365 F.3d 844, 853 (9th Cir. 2004). A civil rights action is not the

proper means by which to enforce the decree. Cagle v. Sut herland, 334 F.3d 980, 986 (11th

Cir. 2003); Klein v. Zavaras, 80 F.3d 432, 435 (10th Cir. 1996); DeGidio v. Pung, 920 F.2d 525,

534 (8th Cir.1990); Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1122-23 (5th Cir. 1986). Standing

alone, remedial orders cannot serve as a substantive basis for a § 1983 claim for damages

because such orders do not create “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitut ion and laws.” Green, 788 F.3d at 1123-24. Remedial decrees are the means by

which unconstitutional conditions are corrected but they do not create or enlarge

constitutional right s. Id. at 1123. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to enforce Hart v. Hill, his

claim is not properly brought in this action. Instead, his allegations must separately state

a violation of a constitutional right. 

2. Overcrowding

Allegations of overcrowding, alone, are insufficient to state a claim under t he Eighth

Amendment. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348 (1981). However, when

overcrowding causes an increase in violence or reduces the provision of other

constitutionally required services, or reaches a level where the institution is no longer fit

for human habit ation, the inmate’s right against cruel and unusual punishment may be

violated. See Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr., 869 F.2d 461, 471 (9th Cir. 1989); Toussaint

v. Yockey, 722 F.2d 1490, 1492 (9th Cir. 1984).

The failure to provide sufficient access to a sp ecific room for meals is not a

constitutional violation in and of itself. See Hop t owit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1254-55 (9th

Cir. 1981) (p roviding that “[i]dleness and the lack of programs are not Eighth Amendment

violations . . . [because] [t]here is no constitutional right t o rehabilitation”). Plaintiff did

not demonstrate that his constitutional right s were violated because he would have to rush

through a meal, particularly given the fact t hat he has an alternative area in which he could

slowly consume his meal. Plaintiff thus fails to demonstrate that his constitutional rights

were violated by overcrowding due t o t he fact that he had to either rush through his meal

Case 2:05-cv-03326-DGC-ECV Document 3 Filed 11/03/05 Page 3 of 7
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 -

or eat at his bunk. T he failure to provide a specific room in which to eat is not a

constitutionally required service. Accordingly, this Count will be dismissed without

prejudice.

3. Visitation

Inmates do not have a right to “unfettered visitation.” Kentucky Dept. of

Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989). Denial of contact visitation does not

violate an inmate’s constitutional rights. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1113 (9th

Cir. 1986). Plaint iff alleges that Hill v. Hart provided that “contact should not be

unreasonably withheld.” Plaintiff alleges that due to the no-contact visit policy, he was

denied his right to have contact with his fiancee and family. Plaintiff does not have the

right to a contact visit, and a no-contact visit at ion policy does not result in a denial of his

constitutional rights.

E. Claims For Which An Answer Will be Required.

At this early stage, Plaintiff sufficient alleges that his constitutional right s were

violated by unsanitary conditions in the food service area. Defendant Arpaio will be

ordered to answer this claim.

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 p ursuant to

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

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (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) Plaint iff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for this action.

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $5.00. All fees shall be collected and paid

Case 2:05-cv-03326-DGC-ECV Document 3 Filed 11/03/05 Page 4 of 7
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 -

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

concurrently herewith.

(3) Counts I and II are dismissed without prejudice.

(4) Defendant Arpaio is ordered to answer Count III.

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

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

Arpaio.

(6) Plaint iff 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 comp let e

service of the Summons and Comp laint on the Defendant within 120 days of the filing of

t he 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 t he Federal Rules

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

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

and a copy of this Order for future use.

(9) The United States Marshal shall not ify Defendant of the commencement of this

act ion and request waiver of service of the summons pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4(h). The notice to Defendant shall include a copy of this

Order. The Marshal shall file waivers of service of t he summons or requests for waivers

that were returned as undeliverable as soon as t hey 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 t he at tempt to secure a waiver of service

Case 2:05-cv-03326-DGC-ECV Document 3 Filed 11/03/05 Page 5 of 7
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 -

of the summons and of the costs subsequently incurred in effecting service up on

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 t his Order and for

p reparing new process receipt and return forms (USM-285), if required. Costs of

service will be taxed against the p ersonally 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 wit hin t he 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 t he Defendant by name on

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

motion or paper t hat does not identify the 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 wit h t he 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.” T he not ice

shall cont ain 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

Case 2:05-cv-03326-DGC-ECV Document 3 Filed 11/03/05 Page 6 of 7
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 -

include any motions for any other relief. Failure to file a Notice of Change of Address may

result in the dismissal of the act ion for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

(15) A clear, legible copy of every p leading 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 Edward C. Voss pursuant to Local Rules

of Civil Procedure 72.1 and 72.2 for further proceedings.

DATED this 1st day of November, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-03326-DGC-ECV Document 3 Filed 11/03/05 Page 7 of 7