Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08153/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08153-0/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

1

 The Arizona State Prison was operated by Management and Training Corporation

(MTC) for the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC). 

TERMPSREF

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dante Shon Gordon, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-8153-PCT-RCB (JFM)

ORDER

On October 6, 2011, Plaintiff Dante Shon Gordon, who was then confined in the

Arizona State Prison, Cerbat Unit, in Kingman, Arizona,1

 filed a pro se Complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 1, 3.) On

November 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address reflecting that he had been

released. (Doc. 5.) In an Order filed on December 8, 2011, the Court denied Plaintiff’s in

forma pauperis application and ordered Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or show cause

why he was unable to do so. (Doc. 7.) Because Plaintiff submitted a one page statement that

was not signed under penalty of perjury and failed to provide specified information, the Court

granted Plaintiff an additional 30 days in which to do so. (Doc. 10.) On March 27, 2012,

Plaintiff provided the requested information and was granted leave to proceed in forma

Case 3:11-cv-08153-RCB Document 14 Filed 04/27/12 Page 1 of 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

pauperis. (Doc. 11, 12.) The case was then reassigned to the undersigned. (Doc. 13.)

Because Plaintiff was a prisoner within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act

(PLRA) when he commenced this case, this case is subject to the PLRA. The Court will

order Defendant Polland to answer Count I of the Complaint and will dismiss the remaining

claims and Defendants without prejudice. 

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, 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.

Case 3:11-cv-08153-RCB Document 14 Filed 04/27/12 Page 2 of 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

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)). 

III. Complaint

Plaintiff alleges three counts for threat to safety or failure to protect and violation of

equal protection. He sues the Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC),

Charles Ryan. He also sues Cerbat Complex Administrator Darla Elliott and Cerbat

Assistant Deputy Warden Robert Polland. Plaintiff seeks injunctive, compensatory, and

punitive relief. 

Plaintiff alleges the following facts in his Complaint: On May 31, 2010, Plaintiff was

one of 25 African-American inmates in the North Yard of the Cerbat Unit in front of

Dormitory 1. Plaintiff and the other African-American inmates were attacked by 80 to 100

White inmates. Four MTC officers in full riot gear stood by and watched after Polland

ordered them to not intervene to stop the attacks. Plaintiff was seriously injured and he

contends that the rioting inmates were not disciplined. 

In a July 2, 2010 letter to Shelby Muhammad, Plaintiff’s mother, Complex

Administrator Darla Elliott denied Muhammad’s request for a full report on the incident.

Elliott maintained that prison staff had acted appropriately, which Plaintiff contends was an

attempt to hide the truth. He also contends that contrary to Elliott’s statement in the letter,

he did not receive a neurological examination until more than a month after the incident. 

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). A “‘plaintiff generally must assert his own

Case 3:11-cv-08153-RCB Document 14 Filed 04/27/12 Page 3 of 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

TERMPSREF - 4 -

legal rights and interests, and cannot assert the legal rights or interests of third parties.’”

Mothershed v. Justices of the Supreme Court, 410 F.3d 602, 610 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975)). 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. Ryan

Plaintiff sues Director Ryan. Although Ryan may properly be sued, Plaintiff fails to

state a claim against him. 

To state a claim against a defendant, “[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply

conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his

civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). For an individual

to be liable in his official capacity, a plaintiff must allege that the official acted as a result of

a policy, practice, or custom. See Cortez v. County of Los Angeles, 294 F.3d 1186, 1188

(9th Cir. 2001). Further, there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, so a

defendant’s position as the supervisor of someone who allegedly violated a plaintiff’s

constitutional rights does not make him liable. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658,

691 (1978); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A supervisor in his

individual capacity, “is only liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the

supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to

act to prevent them.” Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. In addition, where a defendant’s only

involvement in allegedly unconstitutional conduct is the denial of administrative grievances,

the failure to intervene on a prisoner’s behalf to remedy the alleged unconstitutional behavior

does not amount to active unconstitutional behavior for purposes of § 1983. Shehee v.

Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999); accord Mintun v. Blades, No. CV-06-139, 2008

WL 711636, at *7 (D. Idaho Mar. 14, 2008); Stocker v. Warden, No. 1:07-CV-00589, 2009

WL 981323, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2009). 

Case 3:11-cv-08153-RCB Document 14 Filed 04/27/12 Page 4 of 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

TERMPSREF - 5 -

Plaintiff asserts that Ryan is liable as the director of ADC for application of ADC

policies by MTC. He further contends that Ryan is responsible for the health and safety of

inmates incarcerated by or for ADC. Plaintiff predicates liability against Ryan on respondeat

superior. As noted above, respondeat superior is not a basis for liability under § 1983.

Plaintiff does not otherwise allege facts to support that Ryan was directly involved in any

constitutional violation or facts to support that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated

pursuant to a policy, custom, or practice promulgated or endorsed by Ryan. Accordingly,

Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Ryan and he will be dismissed.

B. Elliott

Plaintiff also sues Complex Administrator Elliot for her response to a letter sent by

his mother. Neither the refusal to provide a report of an incident, nor alleged mischaracterization of the incident in response to a letter, rise to the level of a constitutional

violation. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Elliott and she and Count II

will be dismissed. 

C. Count III

In Count III, Plaintiff alleges that the White instigators of the racial attack on him

were not punished or disciplined. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment provides that a state may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the

equal protection of the laws,” which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly

situated should be treated alike. U.S. Const., amend. XIV; see City of Cleburne v. Cleburne

Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). A state practice that interferes with a

fundamental right or that discriminates against a suspect class of individuals is subject to

strict scrutiny. Massachusetts Bd. of Ret. v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 312 (1976); see City of

Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 441. Absent allegations that he is a member of a suspect class, or that

a fundamental right has been violated, a plaintiff must allege facts to support that he has been

intentionally treated differently from others who are similarly situated without a reasonable

basis therefor. See Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). Conclusory

Case 3:11-cv-08153-RCB Document 14 Filed 04/27/12 Page 5 of 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

TERMPSREF - 6 -

allegations do not suffice. See Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev.

Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977). 

Plaintiff alleges that White inmates who instigated or participated in assaulting him

were not disciplined. Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory. He does not allege facts to

support that he ordinarily would be informed if discipline were imposed or by whom.

Further, he does not allege facts to support that the White inmates were treated differently

than non-White inmates with respect to discipline in connection with this incident based on

their race. Finally, Plaintiff fails to link any Defendant to this claimed constitutional

violation. For all of these reasons, he fails to state a claim in Count III. 

V. Claim for Which an Answer Will be Required

In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Polland ordered officers in full riot gear

not to intercede to stop violent assaults on African American inmates by White inmates.

Plaintiff alleges that he was seriously injured as a consequence. Plaintiff sufficiently states

a claim for failure to protect against Polland. 

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 serve Defendants, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a copy

Case 3:11-cv-08153-RCB Document 14 Filed 04/27/12 Page 6 of 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

2

 If a Defendant is an officer or employee of the Arizona Department of Corrections,

Plaintiff must list the address of the specific institution where the officer or employee works.

Service cannot be effected on an officer or employee at the Central Office of the Arizona

Department of Corrections unless the officer or employee works there.

TERMPSREF - 7 -

of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include 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. See LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply

may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Plaintiff.

D. 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 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) Counts II and III and Defendants Ryan and Elliott are dismissed without

prejudice.

(2) Defendant Polland must answer Count I. 

(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

Defendant Polland.

(4) Plaintiff must complete2

 and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court

within 21 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 a 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv

16.2(b)(2)(B)(i).

Case 3:11-cv-08153-RCB Document 14 Filed 04/27/12 Page 7 of 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

TERMPSREF - 8 -

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

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 Rule 4(d) of the Federal

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

Marshal must immediately file signed waivers of service of the summons. If a waiver

of service of summons is returned as undeliverable or 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, and this Order upon

Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and

(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) 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) Defendant 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 response must state the specific Defendant by name on whose

behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, response, or other motion or paper that

Case 3:11-cv-08153-RCB Document 14 Filed 04/27/12 Page 8 of 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

TERMPSREF - 9 -

does not identify the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed.

(12) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf pursuant to Rules

72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial proceedings as authorized

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

DATED this 26th day of April, 2012.

Case 3:11-cv-08153-RCB Document 14 Filed 04/27/12 Page 9 of 9