Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00916/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00916-0/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

 EDC holds immigration detainees pursuant to contract with the Bureau of

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). See http://www.cca.com/facility/

eloy-detention-center/ (last visited June 13, 2012).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kedir Essa Esmael, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Geri Tagliaferri, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-0916-PHX-RCB (MEA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Kedir Essa Esmael, who is confined in the Eloy Detention Center (EDC), a

Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) facility,1

 in Eloy, Arizona, has filed a pro se civil

rights Complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc.

1, 2.) Plaintiff has also filed a motion to amend the damages sought in his Complaint. (Doc.

5.) The Court will dismiss the Complaint and this action and deny the motion as moot. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. (Doc. 2.) This

action was opened as a “prisoner” civil rights case and referred to the Court’s staff for review

pursuant to LR Civ. 72.1(b). A “prisoner” is statutorily defined as “any person incarcerated

Case 2:12-cv-00916-RCB--BSB Document 6 Filed 06/26/12 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated

delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation,

pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(h). That

is, a “prisoner” is a person who is “currently detained as a result of accusation, conviction,

or sentence for a criminal offense.” Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 885, 886 (9th Cir. 2002)

(citing Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2000)). An alien pending

deportation proceedings, which are civil rather than criminal in nature, is not a “prisoner,”

so long as the alien is not also facing criminal charges. Id. at 885-87. 

At the time Plaintiff commenced this action, he was in the custody of Immigration and

Customs Enforcement (ICE) as an immigration detainee and not in connection with pending

criminal proceedings. Plaintiff is not, therefore, a “prisoner” within the meaning of 28

U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(2), 1915A, or 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, and he is not subject to the incremental

fee payment requirement of § 1915(a)(2). Plaintiff otherwise qualifies to proceed in forma

pauperis. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The Court is required to screen complaints brought in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2). 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

Case 2:12-cv-00916-RCB--BSB Document 6 Filed 06/26/12 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

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)).

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

will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim without leave to amend because

the Complaint cannot be amended to state a claim.

III. Complaint

Plaintiff alleges two counts for denial of constitutionally-adequate medical care and

threat to safety. Plaintiff sues the following current or former employees of EDC: Registered

Nurse (RN) Geri Tagliaferri and [First Name Unknown] Rodriguez; Renee Kania; and Phillip

Farabaugh. Plaintiff seeks compensatory relief. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim

Plaintiff alleges violations of his federal constitutional rights by persons acting under

Case 2:12-cv-00916-RCB--BSB Document 6 Filed 06/26/12 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

color of federal law pursuant to Bivens. To state a Bivens claim, a plaintiff must allege that

persons acting under color of federal law violated his constitutional rights. Martin v. Sias,

88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir.

1991)). Thus, an action under Bivens is analogous to one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 except for the replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a federal actor under

Bivens. Id.; but see Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 70-71 (2001);

Minneci v. Pollard, 132 S.Ct. 617, 623 (2012). To state a valid constitutional claim, a

plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury as a result of the conduct of a particular

defendant, and he must allege an affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that

defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 

Plaintiff sues CCA employees for alleged failures to provide constitutionally-adequate

medical care and threats to safety. The United States Supreme Court has declined to expand

Bivens to include a private right of action against a private entity under contract with the

federal government. Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 70-71 (2001).

Further, in Minneci v. Pollard, 132 S.Ct. 617, 623 (2012), the Supreme Court declined to

expand Bivens to include a private right of action for damages against employees of a private

entity under contract with the federal government where state tort law provides an

alternative, existing process capable of protecting the constitutional interests at stake.

Arizona tort law provides such an alternative for injuries due to the denial of medical care

and failure to protect against threats to safety. 

For the above reasons, Plaintiff fails to state a federal claim against any Defendant in

his Complaint. Further, Plaintiff cannot amend his Complaint to state a federal claim against

any of the Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint and this action will be summarily

dismissed. 

V. Dismissal without Leave to Amend

As discussed above, Plaintiff may not seek damages against any of the Defendants for

the claimed Eighth Amendment violations, nor may he amend the Complaint to state a

Case 2:12-cv-00916-RCB--BSB Document 6 Filed 06/26/12 Page 4 of 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 - 5 -

Bivens claim against any CCA employee because state tort law affords an alternative to such

claims. Accordingly, the Complaint and this action will be denied. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted. (Doc. 2.)

(2) The Complaint and this action are dismissed for failure to state a claim without

leave to amend.

(3) Plaintiff’s motion to amend the demand for compensatory relief in his

Complaint is denied. (Doc. 5.) 

(4) The Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action.

(5) The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of this

decision would not be taken in good faith.

DATED this 26th day of June, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00916-RCB--BSB Document 6 Filed 06/26/12 Page 5 of 5