Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00464/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00464-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Michael Morgan,

Plaintiff

-vsMaricopa County Adult Probation Dept., 

et al.,

Defendants.

CV-12-0464-PHX-ROS (JFM)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Matter at Issue - Plaintiff has filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 14.) 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, requires the Court to screen 

complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or 

employee of a governmental entity. 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. Id. 42 U.S.C. § 1997 applies the same 

standard to such complaints even if the defendants are not governmental entities, or 

officers or employees of a governmental entity. Id.

This matter is before the undersigned on referral from the District Judge, and the 

determination of the undersigned on screening is dispositive of some of Plaintiff’s 

claims. Accordingly, the undersigned makes the following proposed findings of fact, 

report, and recommendation pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

and 28 U.S.C. §28(b)(1)(B) and (C).

Construction of Complaint - In screening complaints, the Court is obliged to 

liberally construe the Plaintiff’s complaint:

The handwritten pro se document is to be liberally construed...[A] 

Case 2:12-cv-00464-ROS Document 16 Filed 09/11/12 Page 1 of 6
2

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

pro se complaint, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to 

"less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" 

and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears " 

'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support 

of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' " 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

520-21 (1972)).

Overview of Amendments – Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 14) 

contains a single count, arising out of the imposition of GPS monitoring on Plaintiff 

while under the supervision of the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department 

(MCAPD). Plaintiff names as defendants existing defendants Probation Officers Harlin 

and Christianson. He renames Defendants MCAPD, Chief Probation Officer Broderick, 

and Probation Officers Thompson and Johnson. 

Plaintiff’s original Complaint (Doc. 1) contained six counts. On screening, the 

Court ordered responses to three of the counts (One, Three, and Six) from Defendants 

Harlin and Christianson, and dismissed Defendants MCAPD, Chief Probation Officer 

Broderick, and Probation Officers Thompson and Johnson, as well as the remaining 

counts (Two, Four and Five). Plaintiff’s proposed amendment further eliminates Counts 

Three and Six, as well as the dismissed Counts Two, Four and Five. 

Plaintiff expands the allegations of the sole remaining count, Count One, to add 

an equal protection claim,

1

to address the responsibility of Defendants MCAPD and 

Broderick, and to add allegations against Defendants Thompson and Johnson. 

In the interim, Defendants Christianson and Harlin have filed an Answer (Doc. 

12) to the original Complaint (Doc. 1). 

Equal Protection - With regards to the addition of an equal protection claim, 

 

1

Plaintiff makes passing references in his Count One to a use of excessive force. See

e.g. First Amended Complaint at 3C, 3G. However, Plaintiff’s opening statement of the 

rights violated is limited to due process and equal protection rights. Moreover, Plaintiff 

makes no effort to identify any actual force, as opposed to his allegations of threats of 

prison. Threats alone do not amount to a use of an unconstitutional use of force. See

Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9

th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the undersigned does not 

construe this as a separate claim, but as part of the res gestae of Plaintiff’s due process 

and equal protection claims.

Case 2:12-cv-00464-ROS Document 16 Filed 09/11/12 Page 2 of 6
3

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

Plaintiff makes no allegations about the basis for that claim, beyond his general 

complaints about the imposition of GPS monitoring. “To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a 

plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate 

against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class.” Barren v. Harrington, 

152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff’s allegations offer nothing to suggest a 

discriminatory intent, nor to show that Plaintiff was a member of a protected class, or 

that any discrimination was based upon such a class. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s equal 

protection claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Thompson and Johnson - With regard to Defendants Thompson and Johnson, 

Plaintiff alleges that these defendants violated his rights by failing to immediately 

remove the offending GPS device after the justification for it was removed (although 

they did remove it prior to a scheduled hearing). These defendants were previously only 

named in now removed counts. As with Defendants Harlin and Christianson, Plaintiff

adequately states a due process violation against these defendants.

MCAPD and Broderick – In the original complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the 

probation officers were acting in accordance with policies adopted by MCAPD and 

Broderick. The Court dismissed these defendants because Plaintiff “failed to identify 

any specific policy, procedure, use, or custom.” (Order 4/27/12, Doc. 3 at 5.) Plaintiff 

now affirmatively alleges that he was repeatedly told by Defendants Harlin and 

Christianson that the placement of the GPS monitor was being done pursuant to a policy 

of MCAPD, as established by Defendant Broderick, but failed to otherwise identify the 

policy. He asserts that this “unidentified ‘department policy’” was the justification for 

(and thus the cause of) his constitutional injury by the placement of the monitor without 

due process. (First Amended Complaint at 3C.) Although Plaintiff has yet to put a 

specific name to the policy, he has adequately identified it by referencing Harlin and 

Christianson’s explicit reliance upon it. Accordingly, Plaintiff adequately states claims 

against MCAPD and Broderick based upon their adoption of the policy relied upon by 

Case 2:12-cv-00464-ROS Document 16 Filed 09/11/12 Page 3 of 6
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

Harlin and Christianson.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s equal protection claims 

in his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 14) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Defendants Christianson and Harlin, 

having already appeared herein, be required to respond to the First Amended Complaint 

within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of the order directing such response.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that service on Defendants MCAPD, 

Broderick, Thompson, and Johnson be ordered, and they be required to respond to the 

First Amended Complaint by entry of an order that provides as follows:.

(1) The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a service packet including both 

summons and request for waiver forms for said Defendants.

(2) Plaintiff shall complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of the Court 

within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order. The United States Marshal 

will not provide service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order.

(3) The United States Marshal shall retain the Summons, a copy of such amended 

complaint, and a copy of this Order for future use.

(4) The United States Marshal shall notify said 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 Defendants 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, such amended Complaint and 

this Order upon Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure.

b. Within ten days after personal service is effected, file the return of service 

Case 2:12-cv-00464-ROS Document 16 Filed 09/11/12 Page 4 of 6
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

for the Defendants, 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 Defendants. 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, such amended 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.

(5) Defendants who agree to waive service of the Summons and such amended 

complaint shall return signed waiver forms to the United State Marshal, and 

not to Plaintiff.

(6) Said Defendants shall answer such amended 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.

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

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

pleading, or other motion or paper that does not identify the specific Defendant(s) 

by name on whose behalf it is filed.

EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. 

However, pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall 

have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within 

which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have 

Case 2:12-cv-00464-ROS Document 16 Filed 09/11/12 Page 5 of 6
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

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file 

objections to any findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge will be 

considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues, see United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc), and will constitute 

a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or 

judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Robbins v. 

Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Dated: September 11, 2012

12-0464-011r RR 12 07 31 on Screen Amended Complaint.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:12-cv-00464-ROS Document 16 Filed 09/11/12 Page 6 of 6