Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08124/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08124-0/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

 “Doc.#” refers to the docket number of filings in this case.

TERMPSREF

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charles Frank Gaunt, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Jail Commander Brown, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-8124-PCT-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Charles Frank Gaunt, who is now confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex, Santa Rita Unit, in Tucson, Arizona, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at the Mohave County jail and an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc.# 1.)1

 The Court will order Defendants

Wright, Kitchen, and Nurse Wayne to answer Count I of the Complaint and will dismiss the

remaining claims and Defendants without prejudice. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The statutory

fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income each time

the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a

Case 3:07-cv-08124-SMM-LOA Document 4 Filed 01/10/08 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 -

separate Order requiring the appropriate government agency to collect and forward the fees

according to the statutory formula. 

II. 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 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). 

III. Complaint

Plaintiff alleges three counts in his Complaint for excessive use of force, failure to

protect, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs at the Mohave County Jail.

Plaintiff has sued Mohave Jail Commander Brown, Field Training Officer Wright, Sergeant

Kitchen, and Nurse “Wayne.” Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Plaintiff alleges the following facts: On April 26, 2007, a riot occurred with which

Plaintiff had no involvement. (Doc.# 1 at 3.) Nevertheless, in the aftermath, Officer Wright

zip-tied Plaintiff’s hands behind his back. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, the zip-tie was so

tight that it cut off circulation to his hands causing severe pain and causing his hands to turn

blue. (Id.) Plaintiff in turn asked Wright, Sergeant Kitchen, and Nurse Wayne each to

loosen the ties because they were hurting him, but each refused. (Id.) Plaintiff sat in the yard

for two hours with his hands zip-tied and in severe pain and was repeatedly told to be quiet

when he asked staff to check the tightness of the zip-tie. (Id.) Finally, due to the pain,

Plaintiff asked to use the restroom, so that the zip-tie would be removed temporarily. (Id. at

3A.) Officer Pescatia removed the zip-tie and asked Plaintiff why he had not told someone

what the tie was doing to his hands. (Id.) Plaintiff told him he had but no one cared. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that his requests for medical care after the zip-tie was removed were

ignored by “correctional staff.” (Doc.# 1 at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that the pain in his hands

was so severe that he had difficulty eating or sleeping for the 11 days it took before he

Case 3:07-cv-08124-SMM-LOA Document 4 Filed 01/10/08 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 -

received medical care. (Id.) He further alleges that he had blood poisoning from the cuts

caused by the zip-tie and that his hands now go numb if he holds anything for any length of

time, and he has to rub them together to restore feeling. (Id. 4, 5.) 

IV. Failure to State a Claim

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts supporting that (1) the

conduct about which he complains was committed by a person acting under the color of state

law and (2) the conduct deprived him of a federal constitutional or statutory right. Wood v.

Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989). In addition, 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). 

A. Commander Brown

Plaintiff alleges that Commander Brown should have been present while Plaintiff’s

hands were zip-tied because he was the commander of the jail and his absence was negligent.

(Doc.# 1 at 3A.) “A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an

individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v.

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). For an individual to be liable in his official

capacity, a plaintiff must allege that the official acted as a result of a policy, practice, or

custom. See Cortez, 294 F.3d at 1188. Further, there is no respondeat superior liability

under § 1983, so a defendant’s position as the supervisor of a someone who allegedly

violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not make him liable. Monell, 436 U.S. at 658;

Taylor, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A supervisor in his individual capacity, “is

only liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in

or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.”

Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. 

Plaintiff alleges that Brown is liable based solely on respondeat superior. Plaintiff

has not alleged that Brown enacted or enforced a policy, custom, or practice that resulted in

the denial of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Further, Plaintiff has not alleged that Brown

Case 3:07-cv-08124-SMM-LOA Document 4 Filed 01/10/08 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 -

directly violated his constitutional rights or that he was aware that Plaintiff’s rights were

being violated but failed to act. Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff predicates claims against

Brown based on negligence, he fails to state a claim. Negligence by a defendant acting under

color of state law is not sufficient to state a claim under § 1983. Daniels v. Williams, 474

U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986) (plaintiff must plead more than mere negligence in a § 1983 action);

see Alfrey v. United States, 276 F.3d 557, 568 (9th Cir. 2002). For these reasons, Plaintiff

fails to state a claim against Brown in his Complaint. 

B. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

In Counts II and III, Plaintiff alleges that medical care for his injured wrists and hands

was delayed for 11 days. To state a claim for a constitutional violation regarding medical

care, a plaintiff must allege facts to support that he has or had a serious medical need and that

a particular defendant acted with deliberate indifference to that need. See Estelle v. Gamble,

429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976) (sentenced inmates); Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410,

418-19 (9th Cir. 2003) (pretrial detainees). To allege a serious medical need, a plaintiff must

set forth facts to support that the “‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in

further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’” Jett v. Penner,

439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th

Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th

Cir. 1997) (en banc)). Deliberate indifference may occur if “prison officials deny, delay or

intentionally interfere with medical treatment.” Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390,

394 (9th Cir.1988). Mere negligence, however, “in diagnosing or treating a medical

condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights.’” Lopez,

203 F.3d at 1132 (quoting Hutchinson, 838 F.2d at 394). Further, a delay in receiving

medical care, without more, is insufficient to state a claim against a jailor for deliberate

indifference unless the plaintiff can show that the delay in treatment harmed him. Shapley

v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Assuming that Plaintiff alleges a serious medical need, Plaintiff fails to allege facts

to support that particular Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to that need. Plaintiff

Case 3:07-cv-08124-SMM-LOA Document 4 Filed 01/10/08 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 -

only alleges that he asked Wayne to loosen the zip-tie while his hands were bound, he does

not allege facts to support that Wayne, or any other Defendant, refused or interfered or

delayed medical care of resulting injuries after the tie was removed. For that reason, Plaintiff

fails to state a claim for deliberate indifference against any of the Defendants. 

V. Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required

Plaintiff sufficiently alleges facts to support that Wright, Kitchen, and Nurse Wayne

acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s safety. Accordingly, these Defendants will

be required to respond to that claim. 

VI. 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 serve Defendants, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a copy

of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a certificate

stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, 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.

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-08124-SMM-LOA Document 4 Filed 01/10/08 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 -

D. 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 v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to

comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED: 

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

is GRANTED. 

(2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency,

Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is not assessed an initial partial filing fee.

(3) Counts II and III and Defendant Brown are DISMISSED without prejudice.

(4) Defendants Wright, Kitchen, and Nurse Wayne must answer Count I. 

(5) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including the

Complaint (doc.# 1), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for

Defendant Wright, Kitchen and Nurse Wayne.

(6) Plaintiff must 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

complete service of the Summons and Complaint on a Defendant within 120 days of the

filing of the 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv

16.2(b)(2)(B)(i).

(8) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the Complaint,

and a copy of this Order for future use.

(9) The United States Marshal must notify 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 must include a copy of this Order. The

Case 3:07-cv-08124-SMM-LOA Document 4 Filed 01/10/08 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 -

Marshal must immediately file requests for waivers that were returned as undeliverable and

waivers of service of the summons. If a waiver of service of summons is not returned by a

Defendant within 30 days from the date the request for waiver was sent by the Marshal, the

Marshal must:

(a) personally serve copies of the Summons, Complaint, and this Order upon

Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and

(b) within 10 days after personal service is effected, file the return of service

for 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 Defendant.

The costs of service must be enumerated on the return of service form (USM-285) and

must 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) 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

must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, not the Plaintiff.

(11) Defendant must answer 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) Any answer or response must state the specific Defendant by name on whose

behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, response, or other motion or paper that

does not identify the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed.

(13) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson pursuant to

Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings.

DATED this 9th day of January, 2008.

Case 3:07-cv-08124-SMM-LOA Document 4 Filed 01/10/08 Page 7 of 7