Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02508/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02508-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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.

JDDL-K

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dushan Stephan Nickolich, II, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2508-PHX-SMM (JRI)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff Dushan Stephan Nickolich, II, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex-Tucson, in Tucson, Arizona, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc.# 1.)1

 Plaintiff

has also filed a “Motion for Service.” (Doc.# 3.) The Court will dismiss all of the

Defendants except Dr. Rowe and will order Plaintiff to show cause why his claims against

Dr. Richard Rowe should not be dismissed as time-barred. Because Plaintiff fails to state a

claim against particular Defendants and his claims otherwise appear to be time-barred,

Plaintiff’s motion for service will be denied. (Doc.# 3.) 

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. The Court will assess an

initial partial filing fee of $ 8.09. 28 U.S.C.§ 1915 (b)(1)(A). 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

Case 2:06-cv-02508-SMM Document 4 Filed 12/11/06 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

JDDL-K - 2 -

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 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’s action concerns the failure to inform him that he was diabetic and to

provide appropriate treatment for diabetes to him for four years. Plaintiff sues the Arizona

Department of Corrections (ADC); ADC Director Dora Schriro; ADC Facility Health

Administrator Jayne Russell; and ADC Health Care Provider Dr. Richard Rowe. Plaintiff

seeks compensatory and punitive damages. 

The following facts are alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint. On August 26, 2004,

Plaintiff was informed for the first time that he was diabetic, although his prison medical

records and tests reflected that he has been diabetic since August 29, 2000. Plaintiff

contends that because he was not informed until 2004 that he was diabetic, and he was not

provided appropriate treatment therefor, the debilitating effects of the disease were

accelerated and resulted in damage to his vision and his liver. In Count I, Plaintiff alleges

that Dr. Rowe knew no later than August 29, 2000, that Plaintiff was diabetic but failed to

inform and treat him for that illness in violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. In

Count II, Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Rowe and ADC knew of Plaintiff’s diabetic condition and

that they violated Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process by

failing to inform him thereof. In Count III, Plaintiff alleges malpractice by Dr. Rowe based

on his alleged failure to inform Plaintiff that he was diabetic and to properly treat such

condition. 

Case 2:06-cv-02508-SMM Document 4 Filed 12/11/06 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

JDDL-K - 3 -

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, to state a valid constitutional

claim, 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. ADC

Plaintiff sues the Arizona Department of Corrections. Under the Eleventh

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, neither a state nor its agencies may be

sued in federal court without the state’s consent. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.

Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).

The State of Arizona and its arms, such as ADC, also are not “persons” within the meaning

of § 1983. Hale v. State of Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc);

Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1327 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, ADC

will be dismissed.

B. Director Schriro and Administrator Russell

Plaintiff also names ADC Director Schriro and Heath Administrator Russell as

Defendants in this action. Plaintiff fails, however, to set forth any claims against either. It

appears that he names them solely because they are Dr. Rowe’s superiors. There is no

respondeat superior liability under § 1983, so a defendant’s position as the supervisor of a

person who allegedly violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not impose liability.

Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. Accordingly,

Defendants Schriro and Russell will be dismissed.

C. Statute of Limitations

Plaintiff alleges violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and a state

malpractice claim against Dr. Rowe based on Rowe’s alleged failure to inform him that he

Case 2:06-cv-02508-SMM Document 4 Filed 12/11/06 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

2

 Arizona’s former tolling provision for prisoner causes of action, A.R.S. § 12-

 502(B), was repealed effective July 20, 1996. See TwoRivers, 174 F.3d at 995. Because

Plaintiff’s claims accrued after repeal of the tolling provision, he is not entitled to tolling on

that basis. 

JDDL-K - 4 -

was diabetic in 2000 and to render appropriate treatment since that time. Plaintiff alleges that

he learned he was diabetic on August 26, 2004, or four years after Dr. Rowe first learned that

he was diabetic. 

The failure to state a claim includes circumstances where a defense is complete and

obvious from the face of the pleadings. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir.

1984) (applying former § 1915(d) now codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)). Further, in

the absence of waiver, a court may raise the defense of statute of limitations sua sponte. See

Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680, 687 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Hughes v.

Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1163 (11th Cir. 2003) (appropriate to dismiss prisoner’s complaint sua

sponte as time-barred under § 1915(e)(2)(B)); Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of Corr.,

64 F.3d 951, 956 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (same); Pino v. Ryan, 49 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir.

1995) (same); Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994) (same); Johnson v.

Rodriguez, 943 F.2d 104, 107-08 (1st Cir. 1991) (same). 

In § 1983 actions, the Court applies the statute of limitations of the forum state for

personal injury actions. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266, 274-76 (1985); TwoRivers v.

Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1999); Vaughan v. Grijalva, 927 F.2d 476, 478 (9th Cir.

1991). The Arizona statute of limitations for personal injury actions, including medical

malpractice, is two years. See A.R.S. § 12-542(1); Madden-Tyler v. Maricopa County, 943

P.2d 822, 824 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997); Vaughan, 927 F.2d at 478. The Court must also apply

any state rule for tolling to actions brought under § 1983.2

 Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536,

544 (1989); TwoRivers, 174 F.3d at 992 (§ 1983). Arizona provides for tolling of the statute

of limitation after a cause of action accrues for the period during which a plaintiff was less

than 18 years old or of unsound mind. A.R.S. § 12-502. 

It appears from the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint that his claims accrued more than two

Case 2:06-cv-02508-SMM Document 4 Filed 12/11/06 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 3

 It appears that any claim against Schriro and Russell would be similarly time-barred.

JDDL-K - 5 -

years before he filed his Complaint and that they are, therefore, time-barred. His complaint

was filed on October 20, 2006. For his federal and state claims to be timely, they must have

accrued no earlier than October 20, 2004, two years before his Complaint was filed. “[A]

claim generally accrues when a plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is

the basis of his action.” Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 379 (9th Cir.

1998). Plaintiff alleges that on August 26, 2004, he first learned that he was diabetic and that

Dr. Rowe had failed to inform him of that fact or to properly treat him for it for nearly four

years. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims accrued on August 26, 2004, but Plaintiff did not file this

action until more than two years later. Plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why his claims

against Dr. Rowe should not be dismissed as time-barred.3

 

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.

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 must 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.

Case 2:06-cv-02508-SMM Document 4 Filed 12/11/06 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

JDDL-K - 6 -

D. Possible Dismissal

Plaintiff is warned that failure to timely comply with every provision of this Order,

including these warnings, may result in dismissal of 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 assessed an initial partial filing fee of $8.09.

(3) Defendants Arizona Department of Corrections, Director Dora Schriro and Jayne

Russell are dismissed. 

(4) Plaintiff’s motion for service is denied. (Doc.# 3.) 

(5) Plaintiff must file a written response to this Order in which he shows cause why

his claims against Defendant Rowe action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim

no later than 30 days from the filing date of this Order.

(6) If Plaintiff fails to file a written response in which he attempts to show cause why

his claims against Defendant Rowe should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim within

30 days, the Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this

action with prejudice.

DATED this 8th day of December, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-02508-SMM Document 4 Filed 12/11/06 Page 6 of 6