Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01376/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01376-0/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

Many inmates apparently believe that they will receive an immediate payout from a

fund established in Hart v. Hill, No. CV 77-0479-PHX-EHC (MS) (D. Ariz.). No such fund

exists. The inmates in Hart asked for injunctive relief and not monetary damages. The Court

at this time expresses no opinion whether Plaintiff’s lawsuit may result in an award of

damages. 

TERMPSREF

KM

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daniel Vasquez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Andrew Kunaseth, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1376-PHX-DGC (JRI)

ORDER

Plaintiff Daniel Vasquez, confined in the Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail, has

filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis. This is one of more than 1,000 civil rights actions filed since

September 2004 by Maricopa County Jail inmates.1

 The Court will require Defendants

Kunaseth, Wilcox, and Arpaio to answer Counts I and III of the Complaint.

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. Plaintiff is assessed an

Case 2:06-cv-01376-DGC-JRI Document 3 Filed 07/26/06 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

initial partial filing fee of $8.83. The remainder of the 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 separate Order requiring the

appropriate government agency to collect 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 officer or 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

The following are named as Defendants to the Complaint: 1) Andrew Kunaseth,

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors; 2) Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio; 3) Captain

Clifton, Jail Commander, Madison Street Jail; and 4) Mary Rose Wilcox, Maricopa County

Board of Supervisors. 

Plaintiff alleges three grounds for relief in the Complaint: 1) Plaintiff receives

insufficient, undercooked, and improperly handled food in violation of the Eighth

Amendment; 2) toilet and shower facilities do not have dividing walls and allow inmates to

be exposed to common areas in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and 3) the Jail is

overcrowded in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants

Wilcox, Kunaseth, and Arpaio are liable because they set the policies and procedures for the

Maricopa County Jails. Plaintiff seeks money damages.

Counts I and III of the Complaint adequately state a claim, and the Court will require

Defendants Kunaseth, Wilcox, and Arpaio to answer these claims.

IV. Dismissal of Defendant Clifton

An Eighth Amendment claim requires a sufficiently culpable state of mind by the

defendants, known as “deliberate indifference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834

Case 2:06-cv-01376-DGC-JRI Document 3 Filed 07/26/06 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

(1994). To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must both know of and disregard

an excessive risk to inmate health; the official must both be aware of facts from which the

inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists and he must also draw

the inference. Id. at 837. A prisoner claiming deliberate indifference must allege facts

sufficient to indicate a culpable state of mind on the part of the defendants. Wilson v. Seiter,

501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991). 

In this case, Plaintiff alleges only that Defendant Clifton is responsible for carrying

out policies of Defendant Arpaio and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. Plaintiff

makes no specific, factual allegations against Defendant Clifton and does not allege that

Defendant Clifton was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff.

Defendant Clifton will therefore be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

V. Failure to State a Claim

In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that inmates are not afforded privacy in toilet and shower

facilities. Detainees, like convicted prisoners, do not possess “the full range of freedoms of

an unincarcerated individual.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 546 (1979). “The applicability

of the Fourth Amendment turns on whether the person invoking its protection can claim a

‘justifiable,’ a ‘reasonable,’ or a ‘legitimate expectation of privacy’ that has been ‘invaded

by government action.’” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 525 (1984) (quotation omitted).

See also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 557 (“any reasonable expectation of privacy that a

detainee retained necessarily would be of a diminished scope”). “A right of privacy in

traditional Fourth Amendment terms is fundamentally incompatible with the close and

continual surveillance of inmates and their cells required to ensure institutional security and

internal order.” Id. at 527-28. The Court will therefore dismiss Count II of the Complaint.

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

Case 2:06-cv-01376-DGC-JRI Document 3 Filed 07/26/06 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

TERMPSREF - 4 -

in dismissal.

B. Address Changes

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address 10 days before the move

is effective, if practicable. See LRCiv 83.3(d). Plaintiff may not include a motion for other

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

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 be accompanied by

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. LRCiv 5.4. The Court

may strike any filing that fails to comply with these requirements.

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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

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

Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $8.83.

(3) Defendant Clifton and Count II of the Complaint are dismissed without

prejudice.

(4) 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 Defendants

Wilcox, Kunaseth, and Arpaio.

(5) 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

Case 2:06-cv-01376-DGC-JRI Document 3 Filed 07/26/06 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

TERMPSREF - 5 -

service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order.

(6) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or complete

service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendants Wilcox, Kunaseth, and Arpaio 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 the Defendant not served pursuant to

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule of Civil Procedure

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

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

and a copy of this Order for future use.

(8) The United States Marshal must notify Defendants Wilcox, Kunaseth, and Arpaio

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 Marshal must immediately file with the Court requests for waivers

returned as undeliverable or 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 the

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

(b) Within 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 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) and (5) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

(9) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and Complaint

Case 2:06-cv-01376-DGC-JRI Document 3 Filed 07/26/06 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

TERMPSREF - 6 -

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

(10) Any answer or responsive pleading shall state the specific Defendant(s) by name

on whose behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, responsive pleading, or other

motion or paper that does not identify the specific Defendant(s) by name on whose behalf

it is filed.

(11) Defendants Wilcox, Kunaseth, and Arpaio must answer Counts I and III 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) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin pursuant to Local Rules

of Civil Procedure 72.1 and 72.2 for further proceedings.

DATED this 25th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01376-DGC-JRI Document 3 Filed 07/26/06 Page 6 of 6