Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00665/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00665-1/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 ASH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Anthony Delgado, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Kieth Smith, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-00665-PHX-SPL (MHB) 

ORDER 

On March 25, 2014,1 Plaintiff Anthony Delgado, who is confined in the Arizona 

State Prison Complex-Yuma ("ASPC-Yuma") in San Luis, Arizona, filed a pro se civil 

rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis. In a June 19, 2014 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and 

dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave 

Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the 

Order. 

 

1

 Though Plaintiff’s Complaint was not docketed by the Clerk of the Court until March 31, 2014, it was signed by Plaintiff on March 25, 2014. Under the Prison Mailbox 

Rule, the Court will refer to the date Plaintiff signed – and presumably delivered – his 

Complaint to jail officials as the date on which it was “filed.” See, e.g., Error! Main 

Document Only.Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988); see also Error! Main 

Document Only.Douglas v. Noelle, 2009 WL 1564235, *4 (9th Cir. Jun. 5, 2009) (Error! 

Main Document Only.“We . . . hold that the Houston mailbox rule applies to § 1983 suits filed by pro se prisoners.”).

Case 2:14-cv-00665-SPL--MHB Document 10 Filed 07/31/14 Page 1 of 10
- 2 - 

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 

 On June 25, 2014,2 Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 9). The 

Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 

I. 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, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(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 679. 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 681. 

 

2

 As with his original Complaint, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was not docketed by the Clerk of the Court until July 1, 2014, it was signed by Plaintiff on June 25, 2014. Under the Prison Mailbox Rule, the Court will refer to the date Plaintiff signed – and presumably delivered – his Complaint to jail officials as the date on which it was “filed.” 

Case 2:14-cv-00665-SPL--MHB Document 10 Filed 07/31/14 Page 2 of 10
- 3 - 

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 

 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, 

courts must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 

342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less 

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 

 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). 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 

because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 

to amend. 

II. First Amended Complaint 

 In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants: Kieth Smith, a 

Security Operations officer at Arizona State Prison Complex-Phoenix (“ASPCPhoenix”); Marlene Coffy, a “PCU Administrator” at ASPC-Phoenix; and R. Sanders, the 

Dakota unit Warden at ASPC-Yuma. Plaintiff seeks to be placed in protective custody. 

 In his three-count Amended Complaint, Plaintiff generally alleges that his safety 

has been threatened and that Defendants have violated his civil rights by failing to place 

him in protective custody. In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that he has made requests to 

Defendant Smith on five occasions to be placed in protective custody, but that Defendant 

Smith has denied him each time. Plaintiff asserts that he has been assaulted and had 

threats made against him, and that Defendant Smith is aware, or should be aware, of these 

facts. Plaintiff further asserts that Defendant Smith “directly” denied Plaintiff’s third 

request for protective custody, that Plaintiff appealed this decision, and was ultimately 

placed in a general population yard, where he was assaulted. As a result, pPlaintiff 

alleges that he has been physically injured as a result of the assault, has been placed “in 

the hole” for an extended period of time, and that Defendant Smith’s actions constitute 

cruel and unusual punishment. 

Case 2:14-cv-00665-SPL--MHB Document 10 Filed 07/31/14 Page 3 of 10
- 4 - 

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 

 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Coffy is on a “PCU Committee” 

that has been responsible for evaluating Plaintiff’s requests for protective custody. 

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Coffy knows Plaintiff would not be safe on a general 

population yard, but that he has repeatedly been placed in danger because Defendant 

Coffy “can’t do her job.” Plaintiff further asserts that, as a result of Defendant Coffy’s 

investigations, he has been placed “in [the] hole[]” for two years. As a result, Plaintiff 

alleges that he suffers from stress and anxiety. 

 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sanders “let her personal feelings 

towards [Plaintiff] affect her job.” Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Sanders has kept 

Plaintiff “in th[e] hole” since May 2013, even though Plaintiff has done nothing wrong 

and has not had any disciplinary actions during that time. Plaintiff further alleges that 

Defendant Sanders has had her staff take away Plaintiff’s television and radio. Plaintiff 

also alleges that Defendant Sanders or her staff have twice lost Plaintiff’s paperwork and 

evidence related to his protective custody requests, increasing the amount of time 

Plaintiff has spent in the hole and making it more difficult for him to demonstrate his 

need for protective custody. As a result, Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered emotional 

damage. 

III. Failure to State a Claim

 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 

(2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities 

and (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th 

Cir. 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 

1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). 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). 

 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 

Case 2:14-cv-00665-SPL--MHB Document 10 Filed 07/31/14 Page 4 of 10
- 5 - 

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 

v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a 

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

claim that were not initially pled. Id. 

A. Kieth Smith 

An Eighth Amendment threat to safety claim requires a sufficiently culpable state 

of mind by defendants, known as “deliberate indifference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 

825, 834 (1994). Deliberate indifference is a higher standard than negligence or lack of 

ordinary due care for the prisoner’s safety. Id. at 835. To state a claim of deliberate 

indifference, plaintiffs must meet a two-part test. “First, the alleged constitutional 

deprivation must be, objectively, sufficiently serious”; and the “official’s act or omission 

must result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Id. at 834 

(internal quotations omitted). 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. (internal quotations omitted). In defining “deliberate indifference” in this 

context, the Supreme Court has imposed a subjective test: “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 (emphasis added). 

 Plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to support an Eighth Amendment threat 

to safety claim against Defendant Smith. Plaintiff has not alleged what specific facts 

Defendant Smith was aware of that would objectively demonstrate a sufficiently serious 

threat to Plaintiff’s safety, or when Defendant Smith became aware of these facts. Nor 

has Plaintiff provided any specific facts regarding why Defendant Smith denied 

Plaintiff’s requests for protective custody, or, indeed, whether Defendant Smith has any 

authority to place Plaintiff in protective custody or otherwise address his safety concerns. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently state facts to support an Eighth 

Amendment threat to safety claim against Defendant Smith, and Defendant Smith will be 

dismissed. 

B. Marlene Coffy 

Case 2:14-cv-00665-SPL--MHB Document 10 Filed 07/31/14 Page 5 of 10
- 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 

 Similarly, Plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to support an Eighth 

Amendment threat to safety claim against Defendant Coffy.3

 Plaintiff has not alleged 

what specific facts Defendant Coffy was aware of that would objectively demonstrate a 

sufficiently serious threat to Plaintiff’s safety, or when Defendant Coffy became aware of 

these facts. Nor has Plaintiff provided any specific facts regarding why Defendant Coffy 

denied Plaintiff’s requests for protective custody, or how she has otherwise not “done her 

job.” Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently state facts to support an Eighth 

Amendment threat to safety claim against Defendant Coffy, and Defendant Coffy will be 

dismissed. 

C. Warden Sanders 

 Plaintiff appears to raise a First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant 

Sanders.4

 A viable claim of First Amendment retaliation contains five basic elements: 

(1) an assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because 

of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s 

exercise of his First Amendment rights (or that the inmate suffered more than minimal 

harm) and (5) did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. Rhodes v. 

Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 

267 (9th Cir. 1997) (retaliation claims requires an inmate to show (1) that the prison 

official acted in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right, and (2) 

that the action “advanced no legitimate penological interest”). The plaintiff has the 

burden of demonstrating that his exercise of his First Amendment rights was a substantial 

 

3

 Though he does not specifically allege that Defendant Coffy has violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights or otherwise imposed “cruel and unusual punishment,” Plaintiff has checked the box on the form for “threat to safety” above his allegations against Defendant Smith. Accordingly, the Court assumes Plaintiff intends to allege an Eighth Amendment violation against Defendant Coffy, and analyzes his claim as such. 

4

 Though he does not specifically allege that Defendant Sanders has violated 

Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, Plaintiff has checked the box on the form for 

“retaliation” above his allegations against Defendant Smith. Accordingly, the Court assumes Plaintiff intends to allege a First Amendment violation against Defendant Sanders, and analyzes the claim as such. 

Case 2:14-cv-00665-SPL--MHB Document 10 Filed 07/31/14 Page 6 of 10
- 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 

JDDL-K 

or motivating factor behind the defendants’ conduct. Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of 

Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977); Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 

1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989). 

 Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to support a First Amendment retaliation 

claim against Defendant Sanders. Plaintiff has not alleged what “personal feelings” 

Defendant Sanders has against Plaintiff, why she has these feelings, or, most importantly, 

what motivates them. Additionally, Plaintiff has not alleged what “evidence” Defendant 

Sanders or her staff lost—indeed, it is unclear whether from Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint whether Defendant Sanders was even aware that Plaintiff’s television, radio, 

and paperwork had been “lost”—or how this evidence would have reduced the time he 

spent “in the hole.” Plaintiff has also not alleged why Defendant Sanders kept him “in 

the hole,” or how this placement did not advance any legitimate penological interest. In 

short, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendant Sanders’ alleged actions where done 

“because” Plaintiff engaged in constitutionally protected conduct, that those actions 

resulted in more than minimal harm to Plaintiff, or that they did not advance a legitimate 

penological interest. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to support 

a First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Sanders, and she will thus be 

dismissed. 

IV. Leave to Amend

 Because the Court has concluded that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against 

any named Defendant upon which relief could be granted, the First Amended Complaint 

will be dismissed. Within 30 days, however, Plaintiff may submit a second amended 

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

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

use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the second amended complaint and 

dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 

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

Amended Complaint.” The second amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in 

Case 2:14-cv-00665-SPL--MHB Document 10 Filed 07/31/14 Page 7 of 10
- 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 

its entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 

Complaint or First Amended Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one 

claim per count. 

 A second amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint and First 

Amended 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 the original Complaint and First Amended Complaint as 

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

original complaint or first amended complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was 

dismissed without prejudice is waived if it is not alleged in a second amended complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 

 Further, if Plaintiff files a second 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 the 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 repeat this process for each person he names as a Defendant. If 

Plaintiff fails to explain how the conduct of each named Defendant is connected to the 

specific injury suffered by Plaintiff, the allegations against that Defendant will be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim. Conclusory allegations that a Defendant or 

group of Defendants has violated a constitutional right are not acceptable and will 

be dismissed

V. Warnings

A. Release

 If released from custody, 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) 

Case 2:14-cv-00665-SPL--MHB Document 10 Filed 07/31/14 Page 8 of 10
- 9 - 

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 

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

 If Plaintiff’s 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 First Amended Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a 

claim, if Plaintiff fails to file a second 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). 

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). 

. . . . 

Case 2:14-cv-00665-SPL--MHB Document 10 Filed 07/31/14 Page 9 of 10
- 10 - 

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 

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) The First Amended Complaint (Doc. 9) is dismissed for failure to state a 

claim. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a second amended 

complaint in compliance with this Order. 

 (2) If Plaintiff fails to file a second 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). 

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

civil rights complaint by a prisoner. 

 Dated this 31st day of July, 2014.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-00665-SPL--MHB Document 10 Filed 07/31/14 Page 10 of 10