Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02340/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02340-1/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

1

 “Doc.#” refers to the docket number of filings in this case.

JDDL-K

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald Smith, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Jail, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-2340-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff Ronald Smith, who was then confined in the Towers Jail in Phoenix, Arizona,

filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc.# 1.)1

 He has now

filed a substantially complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, which will be

granted. (Doc.# 7.) Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint, which supercedes the

Complaint in its entirety and the Complaint is not considered by the Court. (Doc.# 3.) The

Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. (Doc.# 7.) 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

The statutory 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

Case 2:08-cv-02340-MHM--DKD Document 8 Filed 02/12/09 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

JDDL-K - 2 -

Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 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). If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the

allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint

before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000)

(en banc). The Court should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This

type of advice “would undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler

v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to decide

whether the court was required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to amend

because the First Amended Complaint may possibly be saved by amendment.

III. First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff alleges three counts for relief in which he purports to incorporate claims

alleged in the original Complaint without setting forth any facts in the First Amended

Complaint. Plaintiff sues the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. Plaintiff does not state the

relief sought. 

IV. Failure to Comply with Rules and Instructions in the First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the rules and instructions for completing the courtapproved form complaint. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a

complaint contain “a short and plain statement of [each] claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 8(e)(1) provides that “[e]ach averment of a pleading

shall be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. To comply with Rule 8, a plaintiff should

Case 2:08-cv-02340-MHM--DKD Document 8 Filed 02/12/09 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

JDDL-K - 3 -

set forth “who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide

discovery.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). Under the Local

Rules, a plaintiff may not incorporate by reference claims or allegations contained in a prior

pleading. Instead, he must re-allege all facts and claims for which he seeks relief. LR Civ.

15.1(b) (an “amended pleading is not to incorporate by reference any part of the preceding

pleading[.]”) The Instructions for completing the court-approved form complaint states in

relevant part that:

Local Rule of Civil Procedure (LRCiv) 3.4(a) provides that complaints by

incarcerated persons must be filed on the court-approved form. The form

must be typed or neatly handwritten. The form must be completely filled in to

the extent applicable. All questions must be answered clearly and concisely

in the appropriate space on the form. If needed, you may attach additional

pages, but no more than fifteen additional pages, of standard letter-sized

paper. You must identify which part of the complaint is being continued and

number all pages. If you do not fill out the form properly, you will be asked

to submit additional or corrected information, which may delay the processing

of your action. You do not need to cite law.

(Instructions at ¶ 1) (italics added). In addition, the Instructions provide that: 

1. Counts. You must identify which civil right was violated. You may allege

the violation of only one civil right per count. 2. Issue Involved. Check the box that most closely identifies the issue involved

in your claim. You may check only one box per count. If you check the box

marked “Other,” you must identify the specific issue involved.

3. Supporting Facts. After you have identified which civil right was violated,

you must state the supporting facts. Be as specific as possible. You must state

what each individual defendant did to violate your rights. If there is more than

one defendant, you must identify which defendant did what act. You also

should state the date(s) on which the act(s) occurred, if possible.

4. Injury. State precisely how you were injured by the alleged violation of

your rights.

(Id., part C) (italics added). 

In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff fails to set forth the relief he seeks or how,

when, where, or by whom he believes his constitutional rights were violated. Instead, he

merely purports to incorporate by reference the facts alleged in his Complaint. As stated

above, a plaintiff may not incorporate by reference allegations contained in a prior complaint.

The First Amended Complaint otherwise also fails to comply with the instruction that “all

questions must be answered clearly and concisely in the appropriate space on the form.” For

Case 2:08-cv-02340-MHM--DKD Document 8 Filed 02/12/09 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

JDDL-K - 4 -

these reasons, the First Amended Complaint will be dismissed. 

Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to submit a second amended complaint that

complies with the Instructions and rules. Plaintiff should carefully follow the Instructions

in completing a second amended complaint. He should set forth only one claim per count.

For each count, Plaintiff should summarize facts to support the constitutional right violated,

by whom, when and where, and how each defendant violated the right. 

V. Failure to State a Claim

In addition to non-compliance with the Instructions and rules, the First Amended

Complaint fails to state a claim. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts

supporting that (1) the conduct about which he complains was committed by a person acting

under the color of state law and (2) the conduct deprived him of a federal constitutional or

statutory right. Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989). In addition, to state

a valid constitutional claim, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury as a result

of the 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. Failure to Name a Proper Defendant

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must sue a “person” who, acting under color

of state law, violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. A “person” for purposes of § 1983,

includes officials or officers who directly violated or caused a violation of a plaintiff’s

constitutional rights. In addition, a supervisor “is only liable for constitutional violations of

his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the

violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.

1989). Further, Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a plaintiff to

include the names of the parties in the action. As a practical matter, it is impossible in most

instances for the United States Marshal or his designee to serve a summons and complaint

or amended complaint upon an anonymous or unnamed defendant. That is, a plaintiff must

sue the “persons” responsible, not “staff” or fictitiously-named defendants. 

In addition to individual officers, a municipality is also a “person” for purposes of

Case 2:08-cv-02340-MHM--DKD Document 8 Filed 02/12/09 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

JDDL-K - 5 -

§ 1983, i.e., municipality such as a city of county may be sued. See Leatherman v. Tarrant

County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 166 (1993); Monell v.

Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). To state a claim against a municipality under

§ 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts to support that his constitutional rights were violated

pursuant to a policy or custom of the municipality. Cortez v. County of Los Angeles, 294

F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91); Thompson v. City of

Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir. 1989). Therefore, a plaintiff cannot state a §

1983 claim against a municipal defendant unless he alleges that the municipal defendant

maintained a policy or custom pertinent to the plaintiff’s alleged injury and explains how

such policy or custom caused his 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 sues only the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO). MCSO is not,

however, a proper Defendant. In Arizona, the responsibility for operating jails and caring

for prisoners is placed by law upon the sheriff, see A.R.S. §§ 11-441(A)(5), 31-101, and the

County, see A.R.S. §§ 11-251(8), 11-291(A). MCSO is simply an administrative creation

of the sheriff to allow him to carry out his statutory duties and is not a “person” amenable to

suit pursuant to § 1983. Accordingly, MCSO will be dismissed.

B. Threats to Safety

It appears that Plaintiff wishes to seek relief for threats to his safety in violation of his

constitutional right, although as discussed above, he failed to set forth any facts in support

any claim. For that reason, the Court informs Plaintiff of the following requirements to state

a claim for threats to his safety in violation of his constitutional rights.

Jail officials are required to take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of

inmates and officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other

prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124,

1128 (9th Cir. 1998). To state a claim for threats to safety, an inmate must allege facts to

support that he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of harm and that

prison officials were “deliberately indifferent” to his safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Frost,

Case 2:08-cv-02340-MHM--DKD Document 8 Filed 02/12/09 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

JDDL-K - 6 -

152 F.3d at 1128; Redman v. County of Los Angeles, 942 F.2d 1435, 1443 (9th Cir. 1991)

(en banc). To adequately allege deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must set forth facts to

support that a defendant knew of, but disregarded, an excessive risk to inmate safety.

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. That is, “the official must both [have been] aware of facts from

which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed], and he

must also [have] draw[n] the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837; Frost, 152 F.3d at 1128;

Redman, 942 F.2d at 1442. 

C. Medical Care

It also appears that Plaintiff wishes to seek relief for constitutionally deficient medical

care, although he failed to set forth any facts to support such a claim in his First Amended

Complaint. The Court will also inform Plaintiff of the requirements to state a claim for

constitutionally deficient medical care. 

To state a claim for denial of constitutionally adequate medical care, a plaintiff must

allege facts to support that he has or had a serious medical need and that a particular

defendant acted with deliberate indifference to that need. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.

97, 104-05 (1976); Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 418-19 (9th Cir. 2003). To

allege a serious medical need, a plaintiff must set forth facts to support that the “failure to

treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and

wanton infliction of pain.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by

WMX Techs, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc)). A plaintiff must also

allege facts to support that a defendant was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need.

“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060

(9th Cir. 2004). Deliberate indifference may occur if “prison officials deny, delay or

intentionally interfere with medical treatment.” Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390,

394 (9th Cir.1988). Mere negligence, however, “in diagnosing or treating a medical

condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights.” Lopez,

203 F.3d at 1132 (quoting Hutchinson, 838 F.2d at 394). Further, a delay in receiving

Case 2:08-cv-02340-MHM--DKD Document 8 Filed 02/12/09 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

JDDL-K - 7 -

medical care, without more, is insufficient to state a claim against a jailor for deliberate

indifference unless the plaintiff can show that the delay in treatment harmed him. Shapley

v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). A difference in

medical opinion also does not amount to deliberate indifference. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at

1058. Rather, to prevail on a claim involving choices between alternative courses of

treatment, a prisoner must show that the chosen course was medically unacceptable under

the circumstances and was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the

prisoner’s health. Id. Similarly, differences in judgment between an inmate and prison

medical personnel regarding appropriate medical diagnosis or treatment are not enough to

state a deliberate indifference claim. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989).

VI. Leave to Amend

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may

submit a second amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of

Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a second amended complaint.

If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the amended complaint

and dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “Second

Amended Complaint.” The second amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its

entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the prior complaints

by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 

A second amended complaint supersedes all prior complaints. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542,

1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat previous complaints as

nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in a prior

complaint is waived if it is not raised in a second amended complaint. King v. Atiyeh, 814

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

Case 2:08-cv-02340-MHM--DKD Document 8 Filed 02/12/09 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

JDDL-K - 8 -

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

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 “Strike”

Because the First Amended Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a claim,

if Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in

this Order, the dismissal will count as a “strike” under the “3-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). Under the 3-strikes provision, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal

a civil judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more

prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal

in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

E. 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, 963 F.2d at

Case 2:08-cv-02340-MHM--DKD Document 8 Filed 02/12/09 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

JDDL-K - 9 -

1260-61 (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 is granted. (Doc.# 7.)

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

Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee, but is not assessed an initial partial filing fee.

(3) The First Amended Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a second amended complaint in

compliance with this Order. (Doc.# 3.)

(4) If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk

of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with

prejudice that states that the dismissal counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

(5) The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff a court-approved form for filing a civil

rights complaint by a prisoner.

DATED this 12th day of February, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02340-MHM--DKD Document 8 Filed 02/12/09 Page 9 of 9