Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04144/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04144-1/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

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 on whether Plaintiff’s lawsuit may result in an award of damages.

TERMPSREF - 1 -

WO RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph Contreras, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-4144-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

On December 19, 2005, Plaintiff Joseph Contreras, formerly confined in the Maricopa

County Lower Buckeye Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint (Doc. #1) pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This action is one of more than 1,000 lawsuits filed in this district since

September 2004 alleging that the overcrowded conditions in the Maricopa County jail system

have resulted in a variety of constitutional violations.1

 The Court will call for an answer to

Counts I, II, and III of the Complaint and dismiss Count IV.

Case 2:05-cv-04144-MHM-DKD Document 7 Filed 09/13/06 Page 1 of 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

I. Payment of Filing Fee

Plaintiff did not initially pay the $250.00 filing fee but filed an uncertified Application

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Upon being notified by Plaintiff that he was living at a

private address in Phoenix, the Court, by Order filed April 21, 2006 (Doc. #5), gave Plaintiff

30 days to either pay the $250.00 filing fee or file a response to the Order.

On May 18, 2006, Plaintiff paid the $250.00 filing fee. Accordingly, the Court will

proceed to review the Complaint.

II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The Court is required to screen complaints or amended 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 the 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

Named as Defendants in the Complaint are: (1) Joseph Arpaio, Maricopa County

Sheriff; and (2) Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.

Plaintiff alleges four counts in his Complaint. In Count I, Plaintiff claims that his

Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by only being fed two meals a day that rarely

exceed 1,800 calories, lack protein, are full of fat, and include undercooked chicken, spoiled

lunch meats, rotten fruit, and moldy bread.

In Count II, Plaintiff claims that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by

being housed in overcrowded conditions.

In Count III, Plaintiff claims that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by

being housed in unsanitary conditions.

In Count IV, Plaintiff claims that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated

when he contacted "Syss" due to the negligence of medical staff and "Jail Facility" and when

he was given the wrong medication for his schizophrenia and bipolar condition and when he

Case 2:05-cv-04144-MHM-DKD Document 7 Filed 09/13/06 Page 2 of 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

was not given a lower bunk.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. 

Plaintiff's allegations in Counts I, II, and III adequately state a claim, and the Court

will require Defendants Joseph Arpaio and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to

answer Counts I, II, and III of the Complaint.

IV. Failure to State a Claim

In Count IV of the Complaint, Plaintiff claims that his Fourteenth Amendment rights

were violated when he contacted "Syss" on his "Buttocks" due to the negligence of medical

staff and "Jail Facility" and when he was given the wrong medication for his schizophrenia

and bipolar condition and when he was not given a lower bunk.

To state a § 1983 medical claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with

“deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106

(1976). Deliberate indifference may occur if “officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere

with medical treatment.” Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988).

However, a mere delay in medical care, without more, is insufficient to state a claim against

prison officials for deliberate indifference. May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.

1980); Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985).

The indifference must be substantial. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. The action must

rise to a level of “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. at 106. Mere claims of

“indifference,” “negligence,” or “medical malpractice” do not support a claim under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980). Not

every claim by a prisoner that he has not received adequate medical treatment states a

violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Because Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the time of the actions he complains of in

the Complaint, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the Eighth

Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, would apply to his medical

claim. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-37 (1979); Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769,

771 (9th Cir.1986). However, in general, the Court borrows from Eighth Amendment

Case 2:05-cv-04144-MHM-DKD Document 7 Filed 09/13/06 Page 3 of 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

TERMPSREF - 4 -

jurisprudence when analyzing the rights of pretrial detainees. See Redman v. County of San

Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1443 (9th Cir. 1991); Cabrales v. County of Los Angeles, 864 F.2d

1454, 1461 n. 2 (9th Cir.1988) (subsequent history omitted).

Plaintiff's medical claims in Count IV fail to rise to the level of constitutional

violations under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. At most Plaintiff's allegations

amount to indifference or negligence which do not satisfy the deliberate indifference

standard. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to link his claims

in Count IV with the actions of either of the Defendants. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362,

371-72, 377 (1976) (to state a viable constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff

must show an affirmative link between the alleged injury and the conduct of an individual

defendant). Accordingly, Count IV of the Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted.

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 2:05-cv-04144-MHM-DKD Document 7 Filed 09/13/06 Page 4 of 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

TERMPSREF - 5 -

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) Count IV of the Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted.

(2) Defendants Joseph Arpaio and Maricopa County Board of Supervisors must

answer Counts I, II, and III of the Complaint.

(3) 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 Joseph

Arpaio and Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.

(4) 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

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

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

service of the Summons and Complaint on each Defendant 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 each 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).

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

(Doc. #1), and a copy of this Order for future use.

(7) The United States Marshal must notify Defendants of the commencement of this

action and request waiver of service of the summons pursuant to Rules 4(d) and 4(j)(2) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 4.1(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil

Procedure. The notice to Defendants must include a copy of this Order. The Marshal must

immediately file requests for waivers that were returned as undeliverable and waivers of

Case 2:05-cv-04144-MHM-DKD Document 7 Filed 09/13/06 Page 5 of 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

TERMPSREF - 6 -

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 (Doc. #1), and this

Order upon Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) and/or Rule 4(j)(2) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure;

(b) Within 10 days after personal service is effected, file the return of service

for 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 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.

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

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

(9) Defendants must answer 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.

(10) Any answer or responsive pleading must 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.

//

//

//

Case 2:05-cv-04144-MHM-DKD Document 7 Filed 09/13/06 Page 6 of 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

TERMPSREF - 7 -

(11) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan pursuant to Rules

72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings.

DATED this 11th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-04144-MHM-DKD Document 7 Filed 09/13/06 Page 7 of 7