Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02032/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02032-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Granville Lee Carroll, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2032-PHX-RCB (ECV)

ORDER

On September 22, 2010, Plaintiff Granville Lee Carroll, who is confined in the

Arizona State Prison Complex-Globe, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a November 18, 2011

Order, the Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and dismissed the Complaint

because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an

amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 

On December 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file an

amended complaint (Doc. 10). On January 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed his First Amended

Complaint (Doc. 11). The Court will grant the Motion for Extension of Time and will accept

the First Amended Complaint as timely filed. The Court will also order Defendants Jackson

and Doe A6203 to answer Count III of the First Amended Complaint. 

. . . .

Case 2:10-cv-02032-RCB Document 12 Filed 01/28/11 Page 1 of 8
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. 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.

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)).

. . . .

Case 2:10-cv-02032-RCB Document 12 Filed 01/28/11 Page 2 of 8
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 -

II. First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff sues the following Defendants: Maricopa County; Correctional Officers John

Doe and James Doe, Sergeant Jackson, Sergeant Jason Doe A6203, and Medical

Administrator Joe or Jane Doe.

Plaintiff raises three claims for relief in the Amended Complaint:

(1) Defendants John and James Doe failed to protect Plaintiff from an attack by

other inmates, watched the attack for some length of time without pressing an

alarm or sending for help, and then fled the pod saying “the hell with this”;

(2) Plaintiff was not provided with surgery for his broken hand; and 

(3) Defendants Jackson and Doe A6203 violated Plaintiff’s due process rights

when they placed him in disciplinary segregation for 28 days without

following disciplinary procedures.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and money damages.

III. Failure to State a Claim

A. Maricopa County

A § 1983 claim against a municipal defendant “cannot succeed as a matter of law”

unless the plaintiff: (1) contends that the municipal defendant maintains a policy or custom

pertinent to the plaintiff’s alleged injury; and (2) explains how such policy or custom caused

the plaintiff’s injury. Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1080 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming

dismissal of a municipal defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). Plaintiff has made

no allegations against Defendant Maricopa County and has therefore failed to state a claim

against it. Defendant Maricopa County will be dismissed.

B. Medical Claims

Not every claim by a prisoner relating to inadequate medical treatment states a

violation of the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment. To state a § 1983 medical claim, a

plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with “deliberate indifference to serious medical

needs.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429

U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). A plaintiff must show (1) a “serious medical need” by demonstrating

Case 2:10-cv-02032-RCB Document 12 Filed 01/28/11 Page 3 of 8
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 -

that failure to treat the condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary

and wanton infliction of pain and (2) the defendant’s response was deliberately indifferent.

Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quotations omitted).

 “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,

1060 (9th Cir. 2004). To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must both know

of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health; “the official must both be aware of facts

from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and

he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Deliberate

indifference in the medical context may be shown by a purposeful act or failure to respond

to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and harm caused by the indifference. Jett, 439

F.3d at 1096. Deliberate indifference may also be shown when a prison official intentionally

denies, delays, or interferes with medical treatment or by the way prison doctors respond to

the prisoner’s medical needs. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05; Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. 

Deliberate indifference is a higher standard than negligence or lack of ordinary due

care for the prisoner’s safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835. “Neither negligence nor gross

negligence will constitute deliberate indifference.” Clement v. California Dep’t of

Corrections, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1105 (N.D. Cal. 2002); see also Broughton v. Cutter

Labs., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (mere claims of “indifference,” “negligence,” or

“medical malpractice” do not support a claim under § 1983).

In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that after suffering a broken hand, the nurse on duty only

placed a splint on the hand. Three days later, Plaintiff states that he saw an orthopedic

specialist who informed him that he would need surgery. Plaintiff alleges that “due to

negligence,” Defendant Joe or Jane Doe failed to schedule his surgery. When Plaintiff was

taken to the hospital after an additional 17 days, he was informed that it had been too long

since he suffered the injury and the surgery could not be performed.

Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to show that Defendant Joe or Jane Doe was

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff has shown only that Defendant

Case 2:10-cv-02032-RCB Document 12 Filed 01/28/11 Page 4 of 8
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”).

TERMPSREF - 5 -

Joe or Jane Doe was negligent in failing to schedule Plaintiff’s surgery. The Court will

therefore dismiss Count II for failure to state a claim.

IV. Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required

In Count III, Plaintiff claims that Defendants Jackson and Doe A6203 violated his due

process rights when they placed him disciplinary segregation for 28 days without following

disciplinary procedures. Liberally construed, these allegations adequately state a Fourteenth

Amendment due process claim and the Court will require Defendants Jackson and Doe

A6203 to answer Count III.

In Count I, Plaintiff claims that Defendants John and James Doe failed to protect

Plaintiff from an attack by other inmates and failed to intervene to stop the attack. Although

Plaintiff has alleged his claim, which the Court construes as brought pursuant to the Eighth

and Fourteenth Amendments, with enough specificity to require an answer, the Court will

not direct that service be made on Defendants John and James Doe at this time. Generally,

the use of John 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 an unidentified defendant. However, the Court will not dismiss the

claim against Defendants John and James Doe 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 must file a motion requesting leave to amend and submit

a proposed amended complaint.1

Case 2:10-cv-02032-RCB Document 12 Filed 01/28/11 Page 5 of 8
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 -

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.

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).

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s December 6, 2010 Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 10) is

granted; the Court will accept the First Amended Complaint as timely filed.

(2) Count II is dismissed without prejudice.

(3) Defendants Maricopa County and Joe or Jane Doe (Medical Administrator) are

dismissed without prejudice.

Case 2:10-cv-02032-RCB Document 12 Filed 01/28/11 Page 6 of 8
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 -

(4) Defendants Jackson and Doe A6203 must answer Count III. 

(5) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including the First

Amended Complaint (Doc. 11), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms

for Defendants Jackson and Doe A6203 .

(6) Plaintiff must complete 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.

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

complete service of the Summons and First 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, 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 First

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, First 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

Case 2:10-cv-02032-RCB Document 12 Filed 01/28/11 Page 7 of 8
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 -

must include the costs incurred by the Marshal for photocopying additional copies of

the Summons, First 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) 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 First

Amended Complaint must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal,

not the Plaintiff.

(11) Defendants must answer the First 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 Edward C. Voss 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 27th day of January, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02032-RCB Document 12 Filed 01/28/11 Page 8 of 8