Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00388/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00388-1/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

TERMPSREF 28

MDR

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kenneth Phillip Patch, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-388-PHX-DGC (DKD)

ORDER

On February 28, 2008, Plaintiff Kenneth Phillip Patch, who is confined in the

Maricopa County Fourth Avenue 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 March 5, 2008 Order,

the Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30

days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. On

April 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. #6). The Court will order

Defendant Arpaio to answer Counts One, Three, and Four of the First Amended Complaint

and will dismiss the remaining counts and Defendants without prejudice. 

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

Case 2:08-cv-00388-GMS Document 7 Filed 05/21/08 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 -

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). 

II. First Amended Complaint

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

County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, Fourth Avenue Jail Commander Captain Haggart, and

Fourth Avenue Detention Officers I - XX. In each Count, Plaintiff alleges a violation of his

right to due process and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that he is a minimum security detainee who has been

housed with sentenced inmates who have threatened him and stolen and destroyed his

property. Plaintiff contends that Defendants were aware of the dangers of housing pretrial

detainees with sentenced inmates and the need to house minimum security inmates

separately, and were warned about inmate assaults on other inmates. Plaintiff asserts that

Defendant Arpaio was aware of and deliberately indifferent to the situation.

In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that he is being punished without due process because

the jail has been on lockdown because of a disturbance in another housing unit. He contends

that the lockdown began as a full lockdown and has been reduced to a 17-hour per day

lockdown. Plaintiff claims Defendant Arpaio knew of and condoned the lockdown. 

In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that detention officers and cleaning crews make

excessive amounts of noise. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Arpaio is deliberately indifferent

to inmate health and safety, makes policies for the jail, and knows of and supports the

excessive noise levels.

In Count Four, Plaintiff alleges that he receives meals that are non-nutritious and

contain moldy and spoiled food. He alleges that Defendant Arpaio is deliberately indifferent

to inmate health and safety, is responsible for the food service policy, and has acknowledged

responsibility for undesirable food being served. 

In Count Five, Plaintiff alleges that there is no visual barrier separating the toilets and

sinks from the rest of the cell and, therefore, female detention officers, medical staff, and

Case 2:08-cv-00388-GMS Document 7 Filed 05/21/08 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

1

Moreover, as to the unnamed Detention Officers, 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, it is impossible in most instances for the United States Marshal or his

designee to serve a summons and complaint on an unidentified defendant. 

TERMPSREF - 3 -

visitors are able to see him using the toilet. He also contends that cleaning supplies are not

provided, that requests for supplies are “usually” denied, and that he is forced to share a sink

and toilet with others.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

III. Failure to Link Defendant with Injuries

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). To state a claim against a supervisory official, the civil rights complainant must

allege that the supervisory official personally participated in the constitutional deprivation

or that the supervisory official was aware of widespread abuses and, with deliberate

indifference to the inmate’s constitutional rights, failed to take action to prevent further

misconduct. See Ortez v. Washington County, 88 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 1996); Taylor v.

List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1987);

see also Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691-92

(1978). 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, 436 U.S. at 691-92; Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045.

Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Haggart or the Defendant Detention Officers

personally participated in a constitutional deprivation or were aware of widespread abuses

and, with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, failed to take action to

prevent further misconduct, or formed policies that resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries. Thus, the

Court will dismiss without prejudice Defendant Haggart and the Defendant Detention

Officers because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against them.1

 

Case 2:08-cv-00388-GMS Document 7 Filed 05/21/08 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 -

IV. Failure to State a Claim

A. Count Two

In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that he is being punished without due process because

the jail has been on lockdown because of a disturbance in another housing unit. Although

the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against the imposition of

“punishment” prior to an adjudication of guilt, a detainee may be subjected to “the

restrictions and conditions of the detention facility so long as those conditions and

restrictions do not amount to punishment.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-37 (1979).

“[I]f a particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a

legitimate governmental objective, it does not, without more, amount to ‘punishment.’” Id.at

539. “[M]aintaining institutional security and preserving internal order and discipline are

essential goals that may require limitation or retraction of the retained constitutional rights

of both convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees.” Id. at 546. Plaintiff does not allege that

the lockdown is not reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective. In fact, it

appears Plaintiff is alleging the opposite – he states that the lockdown was precipitated by

 disruptive behavior among the detainees. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim in Count Two.

B. Count Five

As to the allegation in Count Five that toilets and sinks are not separate from the rest

of the cell and, therefore, female detention officers, medical staff, and visitors are able to see

him using the toilet, the Court notes that pretrial detainees, like convicted prisoners, do not

possess “the full range of freedoms of an unincarcerated individual.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 546.

“The applicability of the Fourth Amendment turns on whether the person invoking its

protection can claim a ‘justifiable,’ a ‘reasonable,’ or a ‘legitimate expectation of privacy’

that has been ‘invaded by government action.’” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 525 (1984)

(quotation omitted). See also Bell, 441 U.S. at 557 (“any reasonable expectation of privacy

that a detainee retained necessarily would be of a diminished scope”). 

Case 2:08-cv-00388-GMS Document 7 Filed 05/21/08 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

TERMPSREF - 5 -

“A right of privacy in traditional Fourth Amendment terms is fundamentally

incompatible with the close and continual surveillance of inmates and their cells required to

ensure institutional security and internal order.” Hudson, 468 U.S. at 527-28. Furthermore,

any restriction on Plaintiff's privacy interests is justified to the extent that it is “reasonably

related to legitimate penological interests.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 89. The Plaintiff “‘bears the

burden of pleading and proving the absence of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct

of which he complains.’” Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1289 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation

omitted). Protecting prison security and preventing the introduction of contraband are

legitimate penological objectives. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 415 (1989);

Bell, 441 U.S. at 558-62. In addition, “assigned positions of female guards that require only

infrequent and casual observation, or observation at a distance, and that are reasonably

related to prison needs are not so degrading as to warrant court interference.” Michenfelder

v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 334 (9th Cir. 1988). Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim

as to the lack of a physical barrier separating the toilet and sink from the rest of his cell.

As to the allegations that requests for cleaning supplies are usually denied and that

Plaintiff is forced to share a sink and toilet with others, the Court notes that “‘[t]here is, of

course, a de minimis level of imposition with which the Constitution is not concerned.’”

Bell, 441 U.S. at 539 n.21 (quoting Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 674 (1977)). 

Communal toilets and the frequent, but not complete, denial of cleaning supplies fall within

this de minimis level of imposition and do not implicate rights of constitutional proportions.

Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim regarding the communal toilets and sinks and

the cleaning supplies.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim in Count Five, and the Court will

dismiss it.

V. Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated claims against Defendant Arpaio in Counts

One, Three, and Four. The Court will require Defendant Arpaio to answer those counts of

the First Amended Complaint.

Case 2:08-cv-00388-GMS Document 7 Filed 05/21/08 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 -

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

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 Defendant, 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) Counts Two and Five and Defendants Haggart and Detention Officers I - XX

are dismissed without prejudice.

(2) Defendant Arpaio must answer Counts One, Three, and Four of the First

Amended Complaint.

Case 2:08-cv-00388-GMS Document 7 Filed 05/21/08 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 -

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

Amended Complaint (Doc. #6), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms

for Defendant Arpaio.

(4) 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.

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

complete service of the Summons and First Amended 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).

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

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

(7) The United States Marshal must notify Defendant 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, 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

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

Case 2:08-cv-00388-GMS Document 7 Filed 05/21/08 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 -

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.

(8) If Defendant agrees to waive service of the Summons and First Amended

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

the Plaintiff.

(9) Defendant 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.

(10) 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 further proceedings.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00388-GMS Document 7 Filed 05/21/08 Page 8 of 8