Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01715/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01715-2/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 

JDDL-K 

WO KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Thad Jarvis Thompson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Unknown Burns, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 13-01715-PHX-SPL (MEA) 

ORDER 

On August 20, 2013, Plaintiff Thad Jarvis Thompson, who is confined in the 

Halawa Correctional Facility in Aiea, Hawaii, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a 

March 3, 2014 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the 

Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days 

to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 

 On March 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 10). The 

Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

 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 

Case 2:13-cv-01715-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 07/21/14 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 

JDDL-K 

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, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory 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 679. 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 681. 

 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). 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 

Case 2:13-cv-01715-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 07/21/14 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 

JDDL-K 

because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 

to amend. 

II. First Amended Complaint 

 Plaintiff names Disciplinary Hearing Officer Burns and Investigator Williamson 

as Defendants in the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff raises one claim for relief in 

which he alleges his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when Defendant Burns 

denied Plaintiff the opportunity to appeal disciplinary sanctions and when Defendant 

Williamson denied him “the option of investigating my denial of appealing disciplinary 

sanction.” Plaintiff alleges that his disciplinary conviction resulted in his being confined 

in disciplinary housing where his conditions of confinement included: 23-hour lockdown, 

solitary confinement, no access to commissary items, frequent wake-up checks, 24-hour 

lighting, and limited exercise. Plaintiff contends that these conditions were atypical. 

 Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and money damages. 

III. Failure to State a Claim

 Where, as in this case, an inmate claims that a protected liberty interest has been 

implicated by atypical and significant sanctions, the inmate must then specify what due 

process safeguard he was denied, and by whom. “Prison disciplinary proceedings are not 

part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such 

proceedings does not apply.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). 

 Procedural due process safeguards in a prison disciplinary hearing require that the 

defendant receive: (1) written notice of the charges, no less than twenty-four hours prior 

to the hearing; (2) a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and 

reasons for the disciplinary action and (3) a limited right to call witnesses and present 

documentary evidence when it would not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or 

correctional goals to allow the defendant to do so. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 

565-66 (1974). 

 Once these Wolff procedural protections are followed, the only function of a 

federal court is to review the statement of evidence upon which the committee relied in 

Case 2:13-cv-01715-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 07/21/14 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 

JDDL-K 

making its findings to determine if the decision is supported by “some facts.” Hanrahan 

v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1141 (7th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted). Due process requires 

simply “that there be some evidence to support the findings made in the disciplinary 

hearing.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457 (1985). 

 Plaintiff alleges that he was denied the ability to appeal his disciplinary 

conviction, but he does not allege that any of the above procedural safeguards were 

violated during his disciplinary hearings. Further, Plaintiff fails to allege facts 

demonstrating that there was not “some evidence” to support his disciplinary conviction. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. 

IV. Leave to Amend

 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff 

may submit a second amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The 

Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a second 

amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may 

strike the second amended complaint and dismiss this action without further notice to 

Plaintiff. 

 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “Second 

Amended Complaint.” The second amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in 

its entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 

Complaint or First Amended Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one 

claim per count. 

 A second amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint and First 

Amended Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal 

Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After 

amendment, the Court will treat the original Complaint and First Amended Complaint as 

nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the 

original complaint or first amended complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was 

Case 2:13-cv-01715-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 07/21/14 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 

JDDL-K 

dismissed without prejudice is waived if it is not alleged in a second amended complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 

V. Warnings

A. Release

 Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee within 120 days of his 

release. Also, within 30 days of his release, he must either (1) notify the Court that he 

intends to pay the balance or (2) show good cause, in writing, why he cannot. Failure to 

comply may result in dismissal of this action. 

B. Address Changes

 Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with 

Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion 

for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in 

dismissal of this action. 

C. Copies

 Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See

LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further 

notice to Plaintiff. 

D. Possible “Strike”

 Because the First Amended Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a 

claim, if Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint correcting the deficiencies 

identified in this Order, the dismissal may count as a “strike” under the “3-strikes” 

provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Under the 3-strikes provision, a prisoner may not bring 

a civil action or appeal a civil judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the 

prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, 

brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the 

grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Case 2:13-cv-01715-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 07/21/14 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 

JDDL-K 

E. Possible Dismissal

 If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including 

these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 

F.2d at 1260-61 (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any 

order of the Court). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) The First Amended Complaint (Doc. 10) is dismissed for failure to state a 

claim. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a second amended 

complaint in compliance with this Order. 

 (2) If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint within 30 days, the 

Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action 

with prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). 

(3) The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff a court-approved form for filing a 

civil rights complaint by a prisoner. 

Dated this 21st day of July, 2014.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:13-cv-01715-SPL--MEA Document 13 Filed 07/21/14 Page 6 of 6