Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01457/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01457-2/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

TERMPSREF 28

WO TCK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Oscar McCoy Nester Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1457-PHX-SMM (GEE)

ORDER

Plaintiff Oscar McCoy Nester Jr., who is confined in the Maricopa County Jail, has

filed a pro se civil rights Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as directed by

the Court's November 3, 2006 order (Doc. #8). The Court will order Defendants to answer

the Amended Complaint.

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). 

Case 2:06-cv-01457-SMM Document 14 Filed 01/09/07 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 -

II. Amended Complaint

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following claims for relief: (1)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference towards his serious

medical needs. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to properly treat his

pneumonia. Plaintiff contends that on numerous occasions he filed grievances wherein he

made Defendants aware that he had difficulty breathing and needed medical treatment, but

Defendants failed to treat him timely. As a result, his lungs filled with fluid and he suffered

extreme pain for 10 days before being hospitalized for two weeks with severe pneumonia.

In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that the living conditions are the Maricopa County Jail are

deplorable. Plaintiff contends that the conditions are overcrowded, food is of poor quality

and nutritionally inadequate and often makes inmates sick, diseases are rampant and the

conditions are hazardous.

Named as Defendants are: Joseph Arpaio; Maricopa County Correctional Health

Services; Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Unknown Parties. Plaintiff seeks punitive

and compensatory damages.

III. Improper Defendants

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not a proper Defendant. In Arizona, the

responsibility of operating jails and caring for prisoners is placed by law upon the sheriff. See

A.R.S. § 11-141(A)(5); A.R.S. § 31-101. A sheriff’s office is simply an administrative

creation of the county sheriff to allow him to carry out his statutory duties, and not a

“person” amenable to suit pursuant to § 1983. Therefore, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s

Office will be dismissed. 

Maricopa County Correctional Health Service is also not a proper Defendant. While

Arizona places responsibility for operating county jails by law upon the sheriff, see \A.R.S.

§§ 11-141(A)(5), 31-101, Maricopa County is responsible for the provision of medical care

to inmates. Correctional Health Service is an administrative creation of the County that is

not a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983. Therefore, Correctional Health Service will

be dismissed as an improper Defendant. 

Case 2:06-cv-01457-SMM Document 14 Filed 01/09/07 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

1

Plaintiff should note that all causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not

alleged in an amended complaint are waived. Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d

1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990) (“an amended pleading supersedes the original”); Local Rule 1.9(d)

(“party filing an amended pleading shall retype the entire pleading and may not incorporate any part

of the preceding pleading, including the exhibits, by reference”). 

TERMPSREF - 3 -

The Court will not direct that service be made on Defendant "Unknown Parties" at this

time. Generally, the use of John or Jane Doe-type appellations to identify defendants is not

favored, and as a practical matter, it is in most instances impossible for the United States

Marshal to serve a summons and complaint upon a John or Jane Doe defendant. However,

the Court will not dismiss the claims against the Unknown Parties at this time. See

Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti,

629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)) (where identity of alleged defendants will not be known

prior to filing of complaint, plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to

identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the

identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds).

If Plaintiff later discovers the identity of these Defendants, Plaintiff should amend his

Complaint to name them. Plaintiff may amend his Complaint “once as a matter of course at

any time before a responsive pleading is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). After any Defendant

has filed an answer or other responsive pleading, however, Plaintiff must file a motion

requesting leave to amend and submit a proposed amended complaint.1

IV. Claims To Which An Answer Will Be Required

The Court will require an answer from Defendant Arpaio on Counts I and II of the

Amended Complaint.

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 of this action.

Case 2:06-cv-01457-SMM Document 14 Filed 01/09/07 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 -

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

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).

VI. Pending Motions

Pending before the Court are the following motions: Motion For Extension of Time

(Doc. #10); Motion For Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #11) and Motion to Suspend Filing

Fees (Doc. #12).

Plaintiff's Motion For Extension of Time (Doc. #10) will be denied as moot.

Plaintiff has filed a Motion For Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #11). There is no

constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Ivey v. Board of Regents

of University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982). The appointment of counsel in a civil

rights case is required only when exceptional circumstances are present. Aldabe v. Aldabe,

616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986). “A

finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success

on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

Case 2:06-cv-01457-SMM Document 14 Filed 01/09/07 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 -

complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (quoting Weygandt v.

Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The Court must review both of these factors

together in deciding whether or not to appoint counsel. Id. 

The Court has reviewed and evaluated the Complaint and finds this action presents

no “exceptional circumstances” requiring the appointment of counsel at this time. Plaintiff

is in no different a position than other pro se litigations who have brought nearly identical

claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #11) will be

denied. 

Finally, Plaintiff has filed a Motion To Suspend Filing Fees (Doc. #12). The Court

noted in its previous order that Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (Doc. #8). The Court does not have the discretion to waive the

filing fee. Rather, Plaintiff was granted the opportunity to pay incrementally by withdrawl

from his inmate account. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion For Extension of Time (Doc. #10) is denied as moot;

 (2) That Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #11) is denied;

(3) That Plaintiff's Motion To Suspend Filing Fees (Doc. #12) is denied;

(4) That Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Correctional Health

Services are dismissed from this action;

(5) 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 Arpaio;

(6) 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.

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

complete service of the Summons and Amended 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,

Case 2:06-cv-01457-SMM Document 14 Filed 01/09/07 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 -

the action may be dismissed as to each Defendant not served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv

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

(8) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the Amended

Complaint, and a copy of this Order for future use.

(9) 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 requests for waivers that were returned as undeliverable and

waivers of 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, Amended 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, Amended 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.

(10) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and Amended

Complaint must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, not the

Plaintiff.

Case 2:06-cv-01457-SMM Document 14 Filed 01/09/07 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) Defendant must answer the Amended 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.

(12) 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

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

(13) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmonds pursuant to

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

DATED this 8th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01457-SMM Document 14 Filed 01/09/07 Page 7 of 7