Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01161/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01161-1/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

JDDL

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Bernard Thomas Baxter, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpiao, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1161-PHX-MHM (ECV)

ORDER

I. Background

On June 2, 2009, Plaintiff David Bernard Thomas Baxter, who is confined in the

Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a June 29, 2009 Order,

the Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint, without

prejudice, 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.

Plaintiff did not timely file an amended complaint. Therefore, on August 13, 2009,

the Clerk of Court entered Judgment. However, also on August 13, 2009, the Clerk of Court

lodged a First Amended Complaint (Doc. #7) that Plaintiff had signed on August 7, 2009 and

jail officials had mailed to the Court on August 11, 2009. Because Plaintiff delivered his

First Amended Complaint to jail officials no later than August 11th, the First Amended

Complaint is deemed as having been filed before the Clerk of Court entered Judgment. See

Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he mailbox rule of Houston v.

Case 2:09-cv-01161-MHM--ECV Document 8 Filed 10/30/09 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

JDDL - 2 -

Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) . . . , applies to a pro se prisoner’s § 1983 complaint.”).

Therefore, the Court will vacate the August 13th Judgment, direct the Clerk of Court to file

the lodged First Amended Complaint, and screen the First Amended Complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

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, 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.

. . . .

. . . .

Case 2:09-cv-01161-MHM--ECV Document 8 Filed 10/30/09 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

JDDL - 3 -

III. First Amended Complaint

In his one-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Defendants Maricopa

County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department, and Members of

the Sheriff’s SRT Staff at the Lower Buckeye Jail.

Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to excessive force in violation his Fifth, Eighth,

and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He claims that the officers assigned to the third shift on

November 12, 2008, came into Dorm M-1 in the Lower Buckeye Jail and directed the

inmates to strip down to their boxers, go to the recreation yard, and sit facing away from the

doors. Plaintiff contends that the inmates complied, but shortly thereafter, an officer

screamed at the inmates and fired several rounds from a pepper spray gun at the inmates for

no apparent reason. Plaintiff contends that other SRT officers fired 100 to 200 rounds from

pepper ball guns at the inmates, threw five “CZ Gas Can[]isters” into the recreation room,

and then locked the doors. Next, Plaintiff claims that the inmates were zip tied, put through

cold showers, left to sit in a hallway for hours with blowers on them, and returned to their

cells in their underwear. Plaintiff claims that he suffers chest pains from the pepper and

hand pains from the zip tie.

In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and declaratory and

injunctive relief.

IV. Improper Defendant

Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department 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

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, the

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department will be dismissed from this action. 

V. Failure to Link Defendant with Injuries

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

520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey v.

Case 2:09-cv-01161-MHM--ECV Document 8 Filed 10/30/09 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

JDDL - 4 -

Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further,

a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the

claim that were not initially pled. Id. 

To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a specific

injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link between the

injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377

(1976). 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. Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 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

. . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the

official’s own individual actions, has violated the constitution.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948.

Plaintiff does not allege any specific conduct by Defendant Arpaio. He does not

allege that Defendant Arpaio personally participated in a constitutional deprivation or that

he was aware of widespread abuses and, with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights, failed to take action to prevent further misconduct, or that he formed

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

prejudice Defendant Arpaio. 

VI. Defendant Members of the Sheriff’s SRT Staff at the Lower Buckeye Jail

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated a claim of excessive force against Defendant

Members of the Sheriff’s SRT Staff at the Lower Buckeye Jail. Although Plaintiff has

alleged his claim with enough specificity to require an answer from these individuals, the

Court will not direct that service be made on Defendant Members of the Sheriff’s SRT Staff

at the Lower Buckeye Jail at this time. Generally, the use of anonymous type appellations

to identify defendants is not favored. Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

requires the plaintiff to include the names of the parties in the action. As a practical matter,

Case 2:09-cv-01161-MHM--ECV Document 8 Filed 10/30/09 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

JDDL - 5 -

it is impossible in most instances for the United States Marshal or his designee to serve a

summons and complaint on an anonymous defendant. 

Plaintiff has not explained why he has not supplied the names of Defendant Members

of the Sheriff’s SRT Staff at the Lower Buckeye Jail. It is unclear why Plaintiff could not

identify them from incident reports or from Dorm M-1 shift logs for the third shift on the

relevant date. It is also unclear why Plaintiff has not been able to obtain their true names

since the incident. 

However, the Court will not dismiss the First Amended Complaint at this time. See

Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (where identity of alleged

defendants is unknown 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). The

Court will give Plaintiff 30 days to respond to this Order in a written pleading entitled

“Response.” Plaintiff’s Response must include either (1) the name of at least one member

of Defendant Members of the Sheriff’s STR Staff at the Lower Buckeye Jail or (2) an

explanation of what Plaintiff has done to try to learn their names, a description of what

discovery he would undertake to learn their names, and the identity of at least one person

who could be served with discovery. If Plaintiff fails to timely file his Response, this case

will be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice.

VII. 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

Case 2:09-cv-01161-MHM--ECV Document 8 Filed 10/30/09 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

JDDL - 6 -

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

action.

C. Copies

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) The Judgment (Doc. #6) is vacated.

(2) The Clerk of Court must file the lodged First Amended Complaint (Doc. #7).

(3) Defendants Arpaio and Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department are dismissed

without prejudice.

(4) Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff must file a Response to this

Order that includes either (1) the name of at least one member of Defendant Members of the

Sheriff’s STR Staff at the Lower Buckeye Jail or (2) an explanation of what Plaintiff has

done to try to learn their names, a description of what discovery he would undertake to learn

their names, and the identity of at least one person who could be served with discovery. 

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . 

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

Case 2:09-cv-01161-MHM--ECV Document 8 Filed 10/30/09 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

JDDL - 7 -

(5) If Plaintiff fails to file a Response within 30 days, the Clerk of Court must enter

a judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to

Plaintiff.

DATED this 30th day of October, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01161-MHM--ECV Document 8 Filed 10/30/09 Page 7 of 7