Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00028/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00028-1/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

JDN

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Norman Lee Stackhouse, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-0028-PHX-DGC (MEA)

ORDER

In this civil rights action brought by a former county jail inmate, Plaintiff sued

Maricopa County and its sheriff, Joseph Arpaio (Am. Compl., Doc. #13). Pending before

the Court is Defendant Maricopa County’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. #17). Plaintiff responded, and Defendant replied

(Doc. ##19, 20). The Court will deny the motion.

I. Background

The Court dismissed without leave to amend Plaintiff’s original Complaint for failure

to state a claim (Doc. #6). Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant

to Rule 60(b)(6) and a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. #10). The

Court granted the motions and screened the Amended Complaint (Doc. #12).

 Plaintiff alleged that after a jail officer removed all of Plaintiff’s belongings from his

cell, Defendants did not return his property or respond to his grievances (Doc. #13). Plaintiff

asserted that this conduct was pursuant to a custom, practice, or usage whereby Defendant

Arpaio permitted his employees to plunder the personal belongings of inmates and that he

encouraged his supervisory personnel to protect their subordinates by concealing the

Case 2:05-cv-00028-DGC-MEA Document 24 Filed 11/13/06 Page 1 of 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 1

Plaintiff also named jail officer John Doe as a third Defendant, however, the Court

did not order service on John Doe (Doc. #12).

- 2 -

identities of those who stole, destroyed, or lost property (Id.). The Court ordered Defendants

Maricopa County and Sheriff Joseph Arpaio to answer1

 (Doc. #12). Defendant Arpaio filed

an answer, and the county submitted the pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. ##20, 17).

In its motion, Defendant Maricopa County contended that the Maricopa County Board

of Supervisors is not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it lacks authority to establish an

official policy with regard to the operation of the jails (Doc. #17). Defendant claimed that

the Board cannot be responsible under a theory of respondeat superior (Id. at 2). Defendant

further argued that because the sheriff derives his duties from Arizona statutes and not from

the county, Maricopa County has no power to control the implementation or exercise of the

sheriff’s duties (Id. at 3). 

The Court issued an order informing Plaintiff of his obligation to respond to

Defendant Maricopa County’s contentions (Doc. #18). Plaintiff responded and asserted that

the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors operates and runs the jails and has authority over

the sheriff and his deputies (Doc. #19). Plaintiff requested a copy of the Amended

Judgement in Hart v. Hill, No. CIV 77-0479-PHX-EHC (MS) (D. Ariz.), and copies of the

rules, regulations, and procedures for the jails (Id.). He argued that these documents will

show that the Board is liable for the policies at the jail (Doc. #19). 

In its reply, Defendant Maricopa County maintained that under Arizona statutes the

sheriff does not answer to the Board of Supervisors, and argued that the Hart v. Hill

judgment is not applicable (Doc. #20). 

II. Analysis

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is rarely an appropriate response when the

court has already screened a prisoner complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and

directed the defendants to respond. The standard for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) (“failure

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”) is virtually identical to the standard under

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (“fail[ure] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted”). After

Case 2:05-cv-00028-DGC-MEA Document 24 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

the Court has screened a prisoner complaint pursuant to § 1915A(b), a Rule 12(b)(6) motion

to dismiss will be granted only if the defendant can convince the Court that reconsideration

is appropriate. Nothing in Defendant Maricopa County’s Motion to Dismiss causes the Court

to reconsider its prior determination that the Complaint stated a claim against the county

upon which relief can be granted. 

Moreover, Defendant’s arguments are unpersuasive and do not conform to the facts

in this case. First, contrary to Defendant’s contention, the Maricopa County Board of

Supervisors is an entity that can be sued (See Doc. #17 at 2). Arizona Revised Statutes

§ 11-201 provides in relevant part:

A. The powers of a county shall be exercised only by the board of supervisors

or by agents and officers acting under its authority and authority of law. It has

the power to:

1. Sue and be sued.

. . . .

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-201(A)(1). Second, Plaintiff did not name the Maricopa County Board

of Supervisors as a Defendant; he only named Sheriff Arpaio and Maricopa County

(Doc. #13 at 2). Third, Maricopa County can be liable in a § 1983 case. The sheriff acts as

the chief policy maker for the jail facilities. Flanders v. Maricopa County, 54 P.3d 837, 847

(Ariz.Ct.App. 2002); see Cortez v. County of Los Angeles, 294 F.3d 1186, 1198-91 (9th Cir.

2002). Under the Arizona Constitution, a sheriff is a county officer. Ariz. Const. art. XII,

§§ 3 and 4. Arizona statute directs the sheriff to “[t]ake charge of and keep the county jail.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-441(A)(5). The county is therefore responsible for the sheriff’s jail

policies. Flanders, 54 P.3d at 847. “There may be no ‘clearer case of county liability’ than

for the policies of a sheriff charged by law with responsibility for a county’s jails.” Id.

(quoting Blackburn v. Snow, 771 F.2d 556, 571 (1st Cir. 1985)).

In addition, a suit against an individual in his official capacity is equivalent to a suit

brought against the governmental entity – in this case, Maricopa County. See Will v.

Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Plaintiff has sued Joseph Arpaio

in his individual and official capacities (Doc. #13 at 2). Plaintiff alleges a violation by

Case 2:05-cv-00028-DGC-MEA Document 24 Filed 11/13/06 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

government officials acting pursuant to established government procedures (Id. at 4). As the

Court determined in its previous order, this allegation sufficiently states a claim against

Sheriff Arpaio and Maricopa County (See Order, Doc. #12). Accordingly, Defendant’s

motion will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Maricopa County’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #17)

is denied. 

DATED this 13th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00028-DGC-MEA Document 24 Filed 11/13/06 Page 4 of 4