Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01077/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01077-0/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

WO KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jeremy Todd Luce, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1077-PHX-SMM (VAM)

ORDER

Plaintiff Jeremy Todd Luce, confined in the Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail,

filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 31, 2006, the

Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a First Amended

Complaint (Doc. #5) on August 21, 2006. The Court will dismiss the Amended Complaint

without 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 officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if 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) and (2). 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 the

complaint before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th

Case 2:06-cv-01077-SMM--VAM Document 6 Filed 10/23/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court is required to grant leave to amend “if a complaint can

possibly be saved,” but not if the Complaint “lacks merit entirely.” Id. at 1129. A court

therefore should grant leave to amend if the pleading could be cured by the allegation of

other facts, or if it appears at all possible that the defect can be corrected. Id. at 1130. 

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 court was required to inform litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend, because the

Amended Complaint cannot be saved by further amendment.

II. Amended Complaint

Plaintiff names Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio and the MCSO Jails as

Defendants to the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff alleges eight grounds for relief in the

Amended Complaint: 1) conditions in the Jail are overcrowded; 2) because of overcrowding,

inmates have limited access to the day rooms; 3) inmates receive insufficient outdoor

recreation; 4) because of overcrowding, inmates are exposed to excessive noise; 5) conditions

in the Jail are unsanitary; 6) inmates receive inadequate medical, dental, and psychiatric care;

7) conditions in the intake areas are overcrowded; and 8) food is handled in an unsanitary

manner. In each Count, Plaintiff alleges that the terms of the amended judgment in Hart v.

Hill have been violated. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

III. Dismissal without Leave to Amend

In its July 31, 2006 Order, the Court informed Plaintiff that in order to state a claim

under § 1983, he must link his alleged injuries with the named Defendants and must also

allege a constitutional violation. The Court further informed Plaintiff that while he may

bring his own claims before the Court, he may not bring suit to enforce the terms of the

amended judgment in Hart v. Hill.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is nearly identical to his original Complaint. In the

Amended Complaint, Plaintiff again fails to link his injuries with the named Defendants, fails

Case 2:06-cv-01077-SMM--VAM Document 6 Filed 10/23/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

to allege a constitutional violation, and again relies on Hart v. Hill as the basis for his claims.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for the same reasons discussed in the Court’s

July 31, 2006 Order, and the Amended Complaint must be dismissed.

Because Plaintiff has failed to amend his claims in accordance with the Court’s July

31, 2006 Order, the dismissal of the Amended Complaint will be without leave to amend, and

the Court will order that the action be dismissed and judgment entered. See SissetonWahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996) (the Court’s

discretion to deny or grant leave to amend is particularly broad where Plaintiff has previously

been permitted to amend his complaint); Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 531,

538 (9th Cir. 1989) (failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments is one of the factors

to be considered in deciding whether justice requires granting leave to amend).

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) The First Amended Complaint (Doc. # 5) and this action are dismissed for failure

to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the Clerk of Court must enter

judgment accordingly. 

(2) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the dismissal

for failure to state a claim counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DATED this 20th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01077-SMM--VAM Document 6 Filed 10/23/06 Page 3 of 3