Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00069/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00069-0/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 

ASH 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Roger Wayne Preayer, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 15-0069-PHX-DGC (DKD) 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Roger Wayne Preayer, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Kingman ("ASPC-Kingman") in Kingman, Arizona, has filed a pro se civil 

rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will order Defendants Schuster, Nalysa, Pillar and 

Ohsheta to answer Count One of the Complaint, will order Defendant Tucker to answer 

Count Two of the Complaint, and will dismiss the remaining Defendants without 

prejudice. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

 Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing fee will be 

collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited to 

Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 

Case 2:15-cv-00069-DGC Document 5 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 10
TERMPSREF

- 2 - 

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 

agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 

II. 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, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(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 679. 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 681. 

 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. 

Case 2:15-cv-00069-DGC Document 5 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 10
TERMPSREF

- 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 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 

III. Complaint 

 In his two-count Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants: Charles L. Ryan, 

Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADOC”); D. Schuster, Deputy 

Warden of the Morey Unit at Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis (“ASPC-Lewis”); Ms. 

Nalysa, Shift Commander of the Morey Unit at ASPC-Lewis; Ms. Pillar, a Corrections 

Officer (CO) III counselor at the Morey Unit at ASPC-Lewis; Carey Tucker, a medical 

practitioner for the Morey Unit at ASPC-Lewis; M.L. Ohsheta, a CO III grievance 

coordinator for the Morey Unit at ASPC-Lewis; and Chris Moody, Warden at ASPCLewis. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief. 

 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that his rights under the Eighth Amendment have 

been violated by the conditions of confinement in the isolation unit at ASPC-Lewis. 

According to Plaintiff, he was transferred from the Stiner Unit at ASPC-Lewis to the 

Morey Unit at ASPC-Lewis on February 7, 2014. For the next 19 weeks, he remained in 

an “isolation lockdown cell” at the Morey Unit, where he was mentally, emotionally, and 

physically neglected and abused by Morey Unit staff. Plaintiff alleges that he was not 

allowed to shave or comb his hair; that he was denied any cleaning supplies to clean his 

cell, including the toilet and sink; that he was not allowed to send his clothes to be 

washed, and was forced to remain in the same set of clothes for the entire 19 weeks; that 

his meals were sometimes served hours late, or not at all; that the toilet and sink in his 

cell did not work; and that he was forced to drink water from the staff restroom or from 

the inmates’ shower using a 1-gallon water bottle that was given to him by a staff 

member. Because the toilet and sink in his cell did not work, Plaintiff was required to 

push the cell’s “emergency” button to get staff attention when he needed to use the 

restroom or needed water; sometimes it took hours for any response from staff. If the 

emergency button failed to alert staff, Plaintiff alleges that he would resort to banging 

and kicking on his door to get staff attention. 

 Plaintiff further alleges that he wrote several “inmate letters” to Defendants 

Case 2:15-cv-00069-DGC Document 5 Filed 04/07/15 Page 3 of 10
TERMPSREF

- 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 

Schuster and Pillar (as well as several others who are not named as Defendants), and that 

he personally spoke to Defendant Nalysa about the conditions of his confinement. When 

the letters were ignored, Plaintiff filed a grievance with Defendant Ohsheta on March 15, 

2014. When Ohsheta failed to respond, Plaintiff filed a “No Response to Grievance” 

appeal to Defendant Schuster on April 24, 2014. Schuster responded on May 1, 2014, 

indicating that “the operation of the isolation cells needed to be improved,” but otherwise 

failed to resolve Plaintiff’s issues. On May 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a grievance appeal to 

Defendant Ryan.1

 On August 26, 2014, Plaintiff received a “response” to his appeal to 

Ryan, but the response appeared to indicate that Plaintiff’s grievance had never actually 

reached Director Ryan, and it is unclear what response, if any, was included that 

addressed Plaintiff’s issues. 

 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that he has received constitutionally inadequate 

medical care, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. According to Plaintiff, he has been 

prescribed medication to manage his high blood pressure since 2002. On February 26, 

2014, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Tucker at the Morey Unit healthcare facility to 

have his prescription renewed. However, Defendant Tucker cancelled the prescription, 

stating that Plaintiff did not need it anymore. On March 28, 2014, Plaintiff again saw 

Tucker at the Morey Unit healthcare facility. Plaintiff complained to Tucker that since 

his blood pressure medication had been discontinued on February 26, Plaintiff had been 

experiencing dizziness, extreme pain and tightness in his eyes and forehead, and 

disorientation, and requested that his blood pressure medication be resumed. Tucker 

responded that Plaintiff no longer needed the blood pressure medication, and refused to 

resume the prescription. 

 The next day, Plaintiff became light-headed and dizzy while in his cell. When the 

sensations did not dissipate, Plaintiff pushed the “emergency” button in his cell several 

times, but no staff responded. When the button failed to alert staff, Plaintiff waived his 

 

1

 By the time Plaintiff submitted his appeal to Ryan, Plaintiff had apparently been transferred out of the isolation cell at Morey Unit. 

Case 2:15-cv-00069-DGC Document 5 Filed 04/07/15 Page 4 of 10
TERMPSREF

- 5 - 

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 

hands frantically at the camera in his cell, but again no staff responded. Plaintiff sat 

down on his bed, and “began sweating really bad.” Reaching down for a drink from his 

1-gallon water bottle, Plaintiff lost consciousness. He was discovered some unknown 

amount of time later “in a puddle of blood.”2

 A medical nurse who was called to 

Plaintiff’s cell found his blood pressure to be “184 over 108,” and had Plaintiff rushed to 

the complex medical unit. Upon arrival at the medical unit, Plaintiff’s blood pressure 

was recorded at “161 over 104.” Plaintiff was placed on an IV drip, and over the next six 

hours his blood pressure eventually stabilized, bouncing from “135 over 85,” to “179 

over 118,” to “155 over 110.” Upon discharge from the medical center, Plaintiff’s blood 

pressure medication was reinstated. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim

 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 

(2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities 

and (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th 

Cir. 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 

1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific 

injury as a result of the specific 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. Defendants Ryan and Moody

 There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and, therefore, a 

defendant’s position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights does not impose liability on the supervisor. Monell v. New York City 

Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978); Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 

1067 (9th Cir. 1992); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “Because 

vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that 

 

2

 Plaintiff alleges that he later learned the guards were eventually alerted to Plaintiff’s condition by another inmate during “the evening dinner” handout. 

Case 2:15-cv-00069-DGC Document 5 Filed 04/07/15 Page 5 of 10
TERMPSREF

- 6 - 

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 

each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has 

violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. 

 Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against either Defendant Ryan or Moody. 

While Plaintiff alleges that he attempted to file a grievance appeal to Ryan, Plaintiff 

appears to allege that the appeal never reached Ryan. Ryan’s mere position as the ADOC 

Director, and therefore as the supervisor of all employees in the ADOC system, is 

insufficient to impose § 1983 liability on Ryan. Plaintiff has not alleged that Ryan 

personally participated in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, was aware of a 

deprivation and failed to act, or formed policies that resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries. Thus, 

the Court will dismiss Ryan without prejudice. 

 Similarly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendant Moody. Moody’s 

only involvement appears to have been as the unwitting recipient of the grievance appeal 

Plaintiff attempted to send to Director Ryan. However, Plaintiff does not allege whether 

he received any response from Moody to the grievance appeal. As with Ryan, Moody’s 

position as Warden of ASPC-Lewis, and therefore as the supervisor of the ASPC-Lewis 

staff – including those in the Morey Unit – is insufficient to impose § 1983 liability on 

Moody. Plaintiff has not alleged that Moody personally participated in a deprivation of 

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, was aware of a deprivation and failed to act, or formed 

policies that resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries. Thus, the Court will dismiss Moody without 

prejudice. 

V. Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required

 Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants 

Schuster, Nalysa, Pillar and Ohsheta in Count One of the Complaint, and an Eighth 

Amendment claim against Defendant Tucker in Count Two of the Complaint, and those 

Defendants will be required to answer the specified allegations therein. 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 2:15-cv-00069-DGC Document 5 Filed 04/07/15 Page 6 of 10
TERMPSREF

- 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 

VI. Warnings

A. Release

 If Plaintiff is released while this case remains pending, and the filing fee has not 

been paid in full, Plaintiff must, within 30 days of his release, either (1) notify the Court 

that he intends to pay the unpaid balance of his filing fee within 120 days of his release or 

(2) file a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis. Failure to comply may 

result in dismissal of this action. 

B. Address Changes

 If Plaintiff’s 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 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted. 

 (2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government 

agency, Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is not assessed an initial partial 

Case 2:15-cv-00069-DGC Document 5 Filed 04/07/15 Page 7 of 10
TERMPSREF

- 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 

filing fee. 

(3) Defendants Ryan and Moody are dismissed without prejudice. 

(4) Defendants Schuster, Nalysa, Pillar, and Ohsheta must answer Count One 

of the Complaint. 

 (5) Defendant Tucker must answer Count Two of the Complaint. 

 (6) 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 

Defendants Schuster, Nalysa, Pillar, Ohsheta, and Tucker. 

 (7) Plaintiff must complete3

 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. 

 (8) 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)(ii). 

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

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

 (10) 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 

 

3

 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. 

Case 2:15-cv-00069-DGC Document 5 Filed 04/07/15 Page 8 of 10
TERMPSREF

- 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 

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. 

 (11) 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.

 (12) Defendants Schuster, Nalysa, Pillar, Ohsheta, and Tucker 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. 

 (13) 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. 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 2:15-cv-00069-DGC Document 5 Filed 04/07/15 Page 9 of 10
TERMPSREF

- 10 - 

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 

. (14) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan 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 6th day of April, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00069-DGC Document 5 Filed 04/07/15 Page 10 of 10