Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02350/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02350-0/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

 Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail at the time he filed

the Complaint.

TERMPSREF

WO KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Leoncio Alfredo Sharpe, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Detention Officer #1859, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2350-PHX-JAT (VAM)

ORDER

On August 5, 2005, Plaintiff Leoncio Alfredo Sharpe, presently confined in the

Reeves County Detention Center in Pecos, Texas,1

 filed a pro se Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("Application to Proceed").

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and 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 two

hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for this action. 

Plaintiff will not be assessed an initial partial filing fee. However, Plaintiff will be

obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month’s income

credited to Plaintiff’s trust account. The Court will direct the appropriate agency to collect

Case 2:05-cv-02350-JAT-MHB Document 6 Filed 11/30/05 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 -

these monthly payments, which will be forwarded to the Clerk of Court each time the amount

in Plaintiff’s account exceeds ten dollars ($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

must pay the remaining unpaid amount of the filing fee within one hundred twenty (120)

days of the date of his release. If Plaintiff fails to pay the remainder of the filing fee within

one hundred twenty (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.

Statutory Screening and Complaint

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). The Court also must dismiss a complaint or portion

thereof if Plaintiff fails to exhaust any administrative remedy available to him. 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a).

Complaint

Named as Defendants to the Complaint are: 1) Detention Officer #1859, Maricopa

County Lower Buckeye Jail; and 2) Maricopa County Sheriff's Department.

 Plaintiff alleges two grounds for relief in the Complaint: 1) Defendant Detention

Officer #1859 placed Plaintiff in a cell with other inmates and stated Plaintiff was a snitch

and sex offender, and Plaintiff's grievances on the issue were not answered; and 2) Plaintiff

received legal mail that was already open and Maricopa County Jail staff failed to respond

to his grievances on the issue or to tell him the name of the officer who opened the letter.

Plaintiff seeks money damages.

Claim to which an Answer will be Required

Case 2:05-cv-02350-JAT-MHB Document 6 Filed 11/30/05 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 Count I, Plaintiff alleges that after a verbal altercation, Defendant Detention Officer

#1859 placed Plaintiff in a holding cell with other inmates and stated that Plaintiff was a

snitch and a sex offender. Plaintiff further alleges that this incident threatened his safety in

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

"Prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical

abuse." Hoptowit v. Ray, 682, F.2d 1237, 1250-51 (9th Cir. 1982). To establish a violation

of this duty, the prisoner must establish that prison officials were "deliberately indifferent"

to serious threats to the inmate's safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994).

Allegations that prison officials called a prisoner a "snitch" in the presence of other inmates

are sufficient to state a claim of deliberate indifference to an inmate's safety. See

Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 18989). Accordingly, the Court

will require Defendant Detention Officer #1859 to answer this claim.

Improper Defendant

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department is not a proper Defendant. In Arizona,

the responsibility of operating jails and caring for prisoners is placed by law upon the sheriff.

See A.R.S. § 11-441(A)(5); A.R.S. § 31-101. A sheriff’s office or department is simply an

administrative creation of the county sheriff to allow him to carry out his statutory duties, and

not a “person” amenable to suit pursuant to § 1983. Therefore, Defendant Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Department will be dismissed.

Failure to State a Claim

Grievances

In both Counts I and II, Plaintiff alleges that his Fourteenth Amendment due process

rights were violated when Maricopa County Jail staff failed to respond to his grievances.

“There is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a [prison] grievance procedure,” Mann

v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898 (1988). Because inmate

grievance procedures are not constitutionally required in state prison systems, the failure to

follow grievance procedures does not give rise to a § 1983 claim. Spencer v. Moore, 638

F.Supp. 315, 316 (E.D.Mo. 1986) (if state elects to provide grievance mechanism, violations

Case 2:05-cv-02350-JAT-MHB Document 6 Filed 11/30/05 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 -

thereof will not deprive inmates of constitutional rights); Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F.Supp.

8, 10 (N.D.Ill. 1982) (a grievance procedure is procedural right only and does not confer any

substantive right upon inmates and, therefore, does not give rise to protected liberty interest);

See also Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d. 994, 998 (10th Cir. 1991) (claim that grievance

procedure was inadequate dismissed as conclusory). Accordingly, failure to respond to

Plaintiff's grievances does not state a claim for § 1983 purposes and these claims will be

dismissed.

Legal Mail

In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that on June 11, 2005, he received legal mail which had

been opened outside of his presence.

Prisoners have a constitutional right to have their legal mail delivered to them

uncensored and unread. Lemon v. Dugger, 931 F.2d 1465 (11th Cir. 1991). However, a

single instance of inadvertent opening of legal mail outside an inmate’s presence, while not

to be condoned, is not actionable as a constitutional violation. Stevenson v. Koskey, 877

F.2d 1435, 1441 (9th Cir. 1989); Bieregu v. Reno, 59 F.3d 1445, 1451-52 (3d Cir. 1995);

Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir. 1990) (an isolated incident of opening

prisoner’s constitutionally protected legal mail, without any evidence of improper motive or

resulting interference with the prisoner’s right to counsel or to access to the courts, does not

give rise to a constitutional violation). Accordingly, Count II will be dismissed.

Motion

On September 12, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Change of Venue (Doc. #3).

Plaintiff appears to be requesting a change of venue because he has been transferred from the

Maricopa County Jail to the Arizona Department of Corrections. The Court notes first that

Plaintiff's transfer from county to state custody does not warrant a change of venue. Second,

Plaintiff has not suggested where this case should be transferred to. Accordingly, Plaintiff's

Motion will be denied.

Rule 41 Cautionary Notice

Plaintiff should take notice that if he fails to timely comply with every provision of

Case 2:05-cv-02350-JAT-MHB Document 6 Filed 11/30/05 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 -

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-

61 (9th Cir.) (district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any order of the

Court), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows:

(1) Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, filed with the Complaint, is

GRANTED;

(2) Plaintiff is OBLIGATED to pay the statutory filing fee of two hundred fifty dollars

($250.00) for this action. Plaintiff will not be assessed an initial partial filing fee. However,

Plaintiff will be OBLIGATED for 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 the Court each time the amount in

Plaintiff’s account exceeds ten dollars ($10.00), until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(2). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this Court’s Order to

the Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections filed concurrently herewith; 

(3) Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff's Department is DISMISSED from this action;

(4) The portion of Count I relating to grievance issues, and Count II are DISMISSED

for failure to state a claim;

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

this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for Defendant Detention Officer

#1859;

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

twenty (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 Defendant within one hundred twenty (120) days

of the filing of the Complaint or within sixty (60) days of the filing of this Order, whichever

is later, the action may be dismissed as to the Defendant not served pursuant to Rule 4(m)

Case 2:05-cv-02350-JAT-MHB Document 6 Filed 11/30/05 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 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 copy of the Complaint, and

a copy of this Order for future use;

(9) The United States Marshal shall notify Defendant Detention Officer #1859 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 Defendant 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 Defendant within thirty (30) 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 ten (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) If Defendant agrees to waive service of the Summons and Complaint,

Defendant shall return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, not the

Plaintiff;

(11) Defendant Detention Officer #1859 shall answer the threat to safety claim in

Count I of 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) Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant, or if appearance has been entered by

Case 2:05-cv-02350-JAT-MHB Document 6 Filed 11/30/05 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 -

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;

(13) 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; 

(14) 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

will result in the pleading or document being stricken without further notice to Plaintiff; and

(15) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Virginia A. Mathis pursuant to Local

Rules of Civil Procedure 72.1 and 72.2 for further proceedings; and 

(16) Plaintiff's September 12, 2005 Motion for Change of Venue (Doc. #3) is

DENIED.

DATED this 29th day of November, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-02350-JAT-MHB Document 6 Filed 11/30/05 Page 7 of 7