Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01538/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01538-0/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

JDDL-K

WO KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jermaine Jordan, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1538-PHX-MHM (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Jermaine Jordan, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexLewis, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave

to amend.

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 assess an initial partial filing fee of $4.78. 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 and forward the fees according

to the statutory formula. 

. . .

. . .

Case 2:10-cv-01538-ROS Document 5 Filed 08/25/10 Page 1 of 8
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 - 2 -

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). 

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, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (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 1950. 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 1951.

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). The Court

should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type of advice “would

undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225,

231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to decide whether the court was

Case 2:10-cv-01538-ROS Document 5 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 8
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 - 3 -

required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for

failure to state a claim, with leave to amend because the Complaint may possibly be saved

by amendment.

III. Complaint

Plaintiff names the following Defendants in the Complaint: Arizona Department of

Corrections (ADOC); ADOC Director Charles Ryan; former ADOC Director Dora Schriro;

C.O. II Morgan; C.O. III Moore; and Inmate Bassy Mitchell.

Plaintiff’s sole ground for relief is that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated

when Defendants failed to respond to a threat to Plaintiff’s safety. Plaintiff alleges that on

August 18, 2008, he was sexually assaulted by his cellmate, Bassy Mitchell. Plaintiff states

that “On 8-19-08 thru 8-20-08, . . . [Plaintiff] submitted statements to [his] assigned C.O. III,

Counselor, C.O. III Moore, who ignored [his] plea for help and failed to respond in a timely

professional fashion to prevent further sexual assault by Inmate Bassy Mitchell.” Plaintiff

states that he also submitted a Health Needs Request, but did not receive medical treatment

until August 21, 2008. Plaintiff states that he also informed C.O. II Morgan that “it was

going to be a problem with Inmate Bassy Mitchell” when Defendant Mitchell was moved

into Plaintiff’s cell on August 18, 2008, but that Defendant Morgan replied, “Inmate Mitchell

is harmless.”

Plaintiff seeks money damages.

IV. Failure to State a Claim

A. Arizona Department of Corrections

The Arizona Department of Corrections is not a proper Defendant. Under the

Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a state or state agency may not

be sued in federal court without its consent. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465

U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, “a

state is not a ‘person’ for purposes of section 1983. Likewise ‘arms of the State’ such as the

Arizona Department of Corrections are not ‘persons’ under section 1983.” Gilbreath v.

Case 2:10-cv-01538-ROS Document 5 Filed 08/25/10 Page 3 of 8
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 - 4 -

Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1327 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). Therefore,

the Court will dismiss Defendant Arizona Department of Corrections.

B. Defendants Ryan and Schriro

To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a specific

injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link between the

injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377

(1976). There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and therefore, a defendant’s

position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights

does not impose liability. Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S.

658, 691-92 (1978); Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 1992); Taylor v. List,

880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens

and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the

official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948.

Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants Ryan or Schriro personally participated in

a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, were aware of a deprivation and failed to act,

or formed policies that resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries. Thus, the Court will dismiss without

prejudice Defendants Ryan and Schriro.

C. Defendant Mitchell

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant was acting

under color of state law at the time the acts complained of were committed, and that

defendant deprived Plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution

or laws of the United States. Briley v. California, 564 F.2d 849, 853 (9th Cir. 1977). Thus,

§ 1983 is not invoked by “purely private conduct.” Id. Private action, no matter how

wrongful, is not actionable under § 1983. Id. 

Defendant Mitchell is a private actor and therefore cannot be sued under § 1983. The

Court will also dismiss Defendant Mitchell.

D. Failure to Protect

Case 2:10-cv-01538-ROS Document 5 Filed 08/25/10 Page 4 of 8
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 - 5 -

The Supreme Court has held that mere negligent failure to protect an inmate from

another inmate is not actionable under § 1983. Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1986).

A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment in failing to protect one inmate from

another only when two conditions are met. First, the alleged constitutional deprivation must

be, objectively, “sufficiently serious;” the official’s act or omission must result in the denial

of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

834 (1994). Second, the prison official must have a “sufficiently culpable state of mind,” i.e.,

he must act with deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety. Id. In defining “deliberate

indifference” in this context, the Supreme Court has imposed a subjective test:

the official must both be aware of the 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 839 (emphasis supplied).

Further, although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

519, 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action.

Ivey v. Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). A

liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the

claim that were not initially pled. Id. 

With respect to Defendant Moore, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Moore failed to

respond to Plaintiff’s complaint about the attack in a timely or professional manner in order

to prevent further attacks. Plaintiff does not describe what Defendant Moore failed to do, nor

does Plaintiff allege that he was subsequently attacked after complaining of the first attack.

It is unclear whether Defendant Moore took some action that Plaintiff found insufficient or

whether Defendant Moore simply failed to act at all. 

To the extent that Plaintiff claims he did not receive medical treatment for three days,

Plaintiff has failed to describe who was responsible for denying him medical care. Again,

to state a claim, Plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury as a result of specific

conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of

that defendant. See Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371-72, 377. 

Case 2:10-cv-01538-ROS Document 5 Filed 08/25/10 Page 5 of 8
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 - 6 -

Finally, with respect to Defendant Morgan, Plaintiff alleges only that he informed

Defendant “it was going to be problem with Inmate Bassy Mitchell.” This statement does

not indicate that Plaintiff was specifically concerned for his physical safety before the attack

and is not enough to demonstrate that Defendant Morgan was deliberately indifferent to a

risk of harm to Plaintiff. To state a claim against Defendant Morgan, Plaintiff must show

both that Defendant Morgan knew there was a risk of harm to Plaintiff and that Defendant

Morgan failed to act. Plaintiff has therefore failed to state a claim.

V. Leave to Amend

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first

amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail

Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails

to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the amended complaint and dismiss this

action without further notice to Plaintiff.

If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements

telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of

the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to do;

(4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of Plaintiff’s

constitutional right; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of that

Defendant’s conduct. See Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371-72, 377.

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

Amended Complaint.” The first 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 by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count.

A first amended complaint supersedes the original 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 an original complaint as

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

Case 2:10-cv-01538-ROS Document 5 Filed 08/25/10 Page 6 of 8
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 - 7 -

complaint is waived if it is not raised in a first amended complaint. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d

565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

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 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 Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a claim, if Plaintiff fails

to file an 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 2:10-cv-01538-ROS Document 5 Filed 08/25/10 Page 7 of 8
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 - 8 -

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) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3) is granted.

(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 $4.78.

(3) The Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has

30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended complaint in compliance with

this Order.

(4) If Plaintiff fails to file an 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).

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

rights complaint by a prisoner.

DATED this 24th day of August, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01538-ROS Document 5 Filed 08/25/10 Page 8 of 8