Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01016/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01016-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

THOMAS L. STEMMONS, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, 

CAPTAIN LARSON, OFFICER

JENSEN,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-01016 PHX NVW MEA

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE NEIL V. WAKE:

This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on referral from

the District Judge, and the determination of the Magistrate

Judge is dispositive of some of Plaintiff’s claims.

Accordingly, the following proposed findings of fact, report,

and recommendation are made pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and 28 U.S.C. § 28(b)(1)(B) and (C).

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an

amended complaint (Docket No. 21). Defendant Jensen, the only

defendant remaining in this matter, has filed an answer to the

complaint.

Rule 15(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that

a plaintiff should be given leave to amend his complaint when

Case 2:07-cv-01016-NVW-MEA Document 25 Filed 10/05/07 Page 1 of 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 -2-

justice so requires. See, e.g., United States v. Hougham, 364

U.S. 310, 316, 81 S. Ct. 13, 17 (1960); Howey v. United States,

481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973). This policy is applied

even more liberally to pro se litigants. Eldridge v. Block, 832

F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal citations and

quotations omitted). 

In exercising its discretion with regard to a motion to

amend a complaint filed after a responsive pleading, the Court

should consider the prejudice to the opposing party and the

futility of allowing the amendment. See Schlachter-Jones v.

General Tele., 936 F.2d 435, 443-44 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court

would have to dismiss a claim added to a complaint if the

plaintiff raised a claim that was legally frivolous or

malicious, that failed to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or that sought monetary relief from a defendant who is

immune from such relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997(c)(1) (2003 &

Supp. 2006). 

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint to add Sheriff

Joseph Arpaio, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and

Maricopa County, as Defendants in this matter. Sheriff Arpaio

was previously dismissed without prejudice as a defendant in

this matter.

The theory of respondeat superior does not provide a basis

for a defendant’s purported section 1983 liability. See Taylor

v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Supervisors and

government officials may be found individually liable pursuant

to section 1983 only on the basis of their own acts or

Case 2:07-cv-01016-NVW-MEA Document 25 Filed 10/05/07 Page 2 of 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 -3-

omissions. See, e.g., Figueroa v. Aponte-Roque, 864 F.2d 947,

953 (1st Cir. 1989). To state a proper claim for violation of

his civil rights, a plaintiff must allege that a specific

individual personally participated in a constitutional

deprivation or that a specific governmental supervisory official

was aware of widespread abuses and acted with deliberate

indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights or failed

to take action to prevent further misconduct. See Rizzo v.

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 377 (1976); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,

568 (9th Cir. 1987). Additionally, “[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 v. County of Los Angeles, 294

F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2001).

The facts asserted by Plaintiff do not indicate how Sheriff

Arpaio directly or personally participated in the activities of

which he complains, i.e., Defendant Jensen’s single act of

alleged excess force against Plaintiff. Neither has Plaintiff

sufficiently alleged Sheriff Arpaio caused a violation of his

rights as a result of a policy, practice or custom.

Accordingly, the motion to amend should be denied with regard to

Plaintiff’s request to add Sheriff Arpaio as a defendant in this

matter. Cf. Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 671 (11th Cir.

1990) (“deprivations that constitute widespread abuse sufficient

Case 2:07-cv-01016-NVW-MEA Document 25 Filed 10/05/07 Page 3 of 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 -4-

to notify the supervising official must be obvious, flagrant,

rampant and of continued duration, rather than isolated

occurrences.”); Maldonado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodriguez, 23 F.3d

576, 582 (1st Cir. 1994) (“isolated instances of

unconstitutional activity ordinarily are insufficient to

establish a supervisor’s policy or custom, or otherwise to show

deliberate indifference”); Henriksen v. Bentley, 644 F.2d 852,

854 (10th Cir. 1981) (“An isolated instance of violation of

constitutional rights by a subordinate is incapable of rising to

an issue regarding the liability of a superior under § 1983").

To state a section 1983 claim against a government unit,

such as Maricopa County or the Maricopa County Board of

Supervisors, the plaintiff must establish an affirmative causal

link between a governmental policy or practice and the alleged

constitutional violation. See City of Canton v. Harris, 489

U.S. 378, 385-85, 109 S. Ct. 1197, 1203 (1989), Monell v.

Department of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-95, 98 S. Ct. 2018,

2035-38 (1978). While a county is a “person” for purposes of

section 1983, counties are liable only for rights deprivations

pursuant to their official customs or policies. See Monell, 436

U.S. at 690-95, 98 S. Ct. at 2035-38. Plaintiff has not alleged

a causal link between the injury he allegedly suffered and an

official custom or policy of Maricopa County or the Maricopa

County Board of Supervisors in his motion to amend or in his

proposed amended complaint. Accordingly, the motion to amend

should be denied insofar as Plaintiff seeks to add Maricopa

County and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors as

Case 2:07-cv-01016-NVW-MEA Document 25 Filed 10/05/07 Page 4 of 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 -5-

defendants.

Plaintiff has not alleged that Sheriff Arpaio enacted or

enforced a policy, custom, or practice that resulted in the

denial of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights on one occasion by

Defendant Jensen. Additionally, Plaintiff has not alleged facts

establishing that Sheriff Arpaio directly violated his

constitutional rights or that Sheriff Arpaio was aware that

Plaintiff’s rights were being violated but failed to act.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint fails to state

a cognizable claim against Sheriff Arpaio. Neither has

Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts which might establish an

affirmative causal link between a policy or practice of Maricopa

County or the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors which and the

alleged constitutional violation, i.e., Defendant Jensen’s

alleged use of excessive force on one occasion. Accordingly,

the motion to amend should be denied with regard to the proposed

addition of these purported defendants.

THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff’s motion to

amend his complaint (Docket No. 21) be denied.

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. 

Case 2:07-cv-01016-NVW-MEA Document 25 Filed 10/05/07 Page 5 of 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 -6-

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

the parties shall have ten (10) 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

ten (10) days within which to file a response to the objections.

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a

waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate consideration of

the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003).

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver

of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact

and conclusions of law in an order or judgment entered pursuant

to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 4th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01016-NVW-MEA Document 25 Filed 10/05/07 Page 6 of 6