Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02144/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02144-0/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

TERMPSREF

WO RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Derric Webb, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-2144-PHX-MHM (MEA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Derric Webb, who is confined in the Maricopa County Towers Jail, 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. #3). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis, require Defendant Arpaio to answer Counts I and II of the Complaint,

and dismiss the remaining claims and Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and

Maricopa County Sheriff Detention Center for failure to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #3) 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 assess an initial partial filing fee of $3.00. The remainder of

the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 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 agency to collect and forward

Case 2:08-cv-02144-MHM Document 4 Filed 02/13/09 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 -

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).

III. Complaint

Plaintiff alleges five counts in the Complaint. 

Named as Defendants in the Complaint are: (1) Joseph Arpaio, Maricopa County

Sheriff; (2) Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office; and (3) Maricopa County Sheriff Detention

Center. 

Plaintiff seeks a jury trial, injunctive relief, and monetary damages.

IV. Dismissal of Defendants

A. Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-441(A)(5); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-101. A sheriff’s office, such as

the Maricopa County 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.

Accordingly, Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff's Office is not a proper Defendant

and will be dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.

B. Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff Detention Center 

The Maricopa County Sheriff Detention Center is also not a proper Defendant to this

action. Claims under § 1983 are directed at “bodies politic and corporate.” Monell v. New

Case 2:08-cv-02144-MHM Document 4 Filed 02/13/09 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 -

York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 688-89 (1978). Under the Civil

Rights Act of 1871, Congress intended municipalities and other local government units to

be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies. Id. at 689-690. Because a jail is

neither a corporation nor a body politic, it is not a person for purposes of § 1983, and

accordingly, the Maricopa County Sheriff Detention Center will be dismissed from this

action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

V. Discussion

A. Count I.

In Count I, Plaintiff claims that his due process rights were violated by Defendant

Arpaio when he knowingly, intentionally, and willfully with deliberate indifference to inmate

health or safety placed Plaintiff at risk of serious harm as per the “Surgeon General Office.”

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Arpaio forms the policies of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s

Office jails and is well aware that asbestos is present in the jails along with other serious

health risks such as galvanized pipe and lead paint. Plaintiff further alleges that asbestos and

lead contamination are in the living areas and the day rooms.

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has adequately stated a claim in Count I, and the Court

will require Defendant Arpaio to answer Count I.

B. Count II

In Count II, Plaintiff claims that his due process rights were violated by the

overcrowded conditions in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office jails. Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant Arpaio forms the policies at the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office jails and is well

aware of the overcrowding in his jails. Plaintiff further alleges that due to overcrowding and

a lack of “Sound Board,” noise levels are almost deafening, disrupting any and all activities.

Plaintiff claims that this creates a lot of agitation with inmates which escalates the level of

fights, which puts Plaintiff in danger of not just emotional injury, but also physical injury.

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has adequately stated a claim in Count II, and the Court

will require Defendant Arpaio to answer Count II.

Case 2:08-cv-02144-MHM Document 4 Filed 02/13/09 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

1

Because Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is being dismissed as an improper

Defendant, the Court will not consider Plaintiff’s claim in Count III against Defendant

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. 

TERMPSREF - 4 -

C. Count III

In Count III, Plaintiff claims that his due process rights were violated when

Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and Arpaio failed to provide him with

significant access to the courts as required in “Hart vs. Hill.”1

 Plaintiff alleges that on

several occasions he submitted legal orders to Inmate Legal Services asking how he was to

pursue another civil matter and they stated that they were not permitted to assist or advise

Plaintiff in the matter.

To establish that he was denied meaningful access to the courts, a plaintiff must

submit evidence showing that he suffered an “actual injury” as a result of the defendants’

actions. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). An “actual injury” is “actual prejudice

with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing

deadline or to present a claim.” Id. at 348. “[A]n inmate cannot establish relevant actual

injury simply by establishing that his prison’s law library or legal assistance program is

subpar in some theoretical sense.” Id. at 351. Moreover, the constitutional right of access

to a library or legal assistance extends only through the pleading stage. Cornett v. Donovan,

51 F.3d 894, 898-900 (9th Cir. 1995).

To show actual injury with respect to contemplated litigation, the plaintiff must

demonstrate that the conduct of the defendants prevented him from bringing to court a

nonfrivolous claim that he wished to present. Lewis,518 U.S. at 352-53. That nonfrivolous

claim must be a direct or collateral attack on the inmate’s sentence, or a challenge to the

conditions of his confinement. Id. at 355. “Impairment of any other litigating capacity is

simply one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and

incarceration.” Id. (emphasis in original). 

In Count III, Plaintiff alleges that his “civil issue was against another law enforcement

branch” and that he “lost possible damages for physical injuries & mental injuries that could

Case 2:08-cv-02144-MHM Document 4 Filed 02/13/09 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 -

have been awarded” to him. Plaintiff does not allege that his claim was a nonfrivolous one.

Moreover, the claims does not appear to have been a direct or collateral attack on the his

sentence, or a challenge to the conditions of his confinement. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed

to show the requisite actual injury needed to state a claim for relief in Count III.

Accordingly, Count III will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted. 

In so doing, the Court notes that Plaintiff refers in Count III to the requirements of

“Hart vs. Hill.” The Court assumes that Plaintiff is referring to the class action of Hart v.

Hill, CV 77-0479-PHX-EHC (MS), now Graves v. Arpaio, CV 77-0479-PHX-NVW (MS).

However, with respect to any injunctive relief sought that might be sought by Plaintiff

in connection with the rights enumerated in the Amended Judgment of Graves, Plaintiff

should note that such relief may only be sought or enforced within the original case. The

Amended Judgment precludes Plaintiff from seeking separate and individual injunctive relief.

With respect to any claim for monetary damages, Graves provides no independent

cause of action. Although the class action does not foreclose an individual complaint for

damages, see Hiser v. Franklin, 94 F.3d 1287 (9th Cir. 1996), Plaintiff must demonstrate

some right of action and legal entitlement to the monetary damages he seeks. In a case

challenging the conditions of confinement of pretrial detainees, the most likely source of a

right to sue (of which Plaintiff has availed himself in this action) is 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

However, in order to state a claim under § 1983, Plaintiff must allege a cognizable

constitutional claim, which he has failed to do in Count III.

D. Count IV 

In Count IV, Plaintiff claims that his due process rights were violated from August

21, 2007 until November 5, 2008 when “Defendants” denied him one hour a day, six days

a week, of recreation time as allotted in “Hart vs. Hill” at a “denial rate of 70%.”

To state a viable constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must show an

affirmative link between the alleged injury and the conduct of an individual Defendant.

Case 2:08-cv-02144-MHM Document 4 Filed 02/13/09 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 -

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). However, Plaintiff has not referred to

the conduct of any individual Defendant in Count IV. Instead, Plaintiff has only vaguely

referred to “Defendants” as a group.

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519

(1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Board

of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982); Rhodes v.

Robinson, 612 F.2d 766, 772 (3d Cir. 1979). Further, a liberal interpretation of a civil rights

complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled. Ivey,

673 F.2d at 268.

Accordingly, Count IV will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted.

E. Count V

In Count V, Plaintiff claims that his due process rights have been violated because

“staff at Center have not treated” him “in a timely fashion & have not p[re]scribed him

proper pain medication.” Plaintiff alleges that he “entered County Jail with a head injury”

on August 21, 2007, and that he has “put in several medical requests of pain and other

complications.” 

Plaintiff has not shown an affirmative link between the alleged injury and the conduct

of any individual Defendant in Count V. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371-72, 377. To the extent that

“Center” may refer to the Maricopa County Sheriff Detention Center, the Court notes that

Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff Detention Center is being dismissed as an improper

Defendant.

Accordingly, Count V will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. 

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

Case 2:08-cv-02144-MHM Document 4 Filed 02/13/09 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

TERMPSREF - 7 -

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 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #3) is granted. 

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

Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $3.00.

(3) Counts III, IV, and V of the Complaint (Doc. #1) are dismissed for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

(4) Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and Maricopa County Sheriff

Detention Center are dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted.

(5) Defendant Joseph Arpaio must answer Counts I and II of the Complaint.

Case 2:08-cv-02144-MHM Document 4 Filed 02/13/09 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 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 Joseph Arpaio.

(7) 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.

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

complete service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant Arpaio 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(I).

(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 Defendant Joseph Arpaio 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 Defendant 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 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 Arpaio 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

Case 2:08-cv-02144-MHM Document 4 Filed 02/13/09 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 -

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) If Defendant Arpaio agrees to waive service of the Summons and

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

the Plaintiff.

(12) Defendant Arpaio must answer Counts I and II of 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) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey 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 12th day of February, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02144-MHM Document 4 Filed 02/13/09 Page 9 of 9