Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00218/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00218-0/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

WO JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kenneth Nello Brown, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-0218-PHX-SMM (MEA)

ORDER

Plaintiff, currently confined in the Special Management Unit - Eyman, of the Arizona

State Prison in Florence, Arizona, has filed a pro se First Amended Complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court will dismiss the action.

A. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against

a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if 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 the

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

Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court is required to grant leave to amend “if a complaint can

Case 2:05-cv-00218-SMM--MEA Document 7 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

possibly be saved,” but not if the Complaint “lacks merit entirely.” Id. at 1129. A court

therefore should grant leave to amend if the pleading could be cured by the allegation of

other facts, or if it appears at all possible that the defect can be corrected. Id. at 1130. By

Order filed March 28, 2005, the Court granted leave to amend to cure deficiencies in

Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. # 5). Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed

without leave to amend because Plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiencies.

B. First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s action concerns his previous confinement in a Maricopa County jail.

Plaintiff names the County of Maricopa as the sole Defendant. In Count I, Plaintiff alleges

that three men were housed in a two man cell and Plaintiff was forced to sleep on the floor,

which caused lower back problems. In Count II, Plaintiff contends that he was exposed to

inmates with contagious diseases. And in Count III, Plaintiff alleges that he received

outdated and spoiled food. For relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

C. Failure to State a Claim.

Leave to amend need not be given if a complaint as amended is subject to dismissal.

Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court’s

discretion to deny or grant leave to amend is particularly broad where Plaintiff has previously

been permitted to amend his complaint. See Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United

States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996). Failure to cure deficiencies by previous

amendments is one of the factors to be considered in deciding whether justice requires

granting leave to amend. Moore, 885 F.2d at 538. By Order filed March 28, 2005, the Court

dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to amend on the grounds that Plaintiff named an

improper Defendant (Doc. # 5). In its Order, the Court stated that Plaintiff may be able to

name a person or entity that is subject to suit, and identified the allegations necessary to name

an entity such as the county. The Order also set forth the pleading requirements to name a

person in either his official capacity or his individual capacity. 

In his First Amended Complaint Plaintiff has failed to abide by those pleading

requirements. Plaintiff names Maricopa County as the sole Defendant, however, Plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-00218-SMM--MEA Document 7 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

fails to allege that a municipal policy or custom caused a constitutional injury.

Consequently, Maricopa County cannot be held liable and must be dismissed. The

deficiency in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is the same deficiency addressed by the

Order of March 28, 2005. Accordingly, the First Amended Complaint will be dismissed and

the Court will deny leave to amend.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

(1) The First Amended Complaint (Doc. # 6) and this action are dismissed for failure

to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the Clerk of Court shall enter

judgment accordingly. 

(2) The Clerk of Court shall make an entry on the docket in this matter indicating

that the dismissal for failure to state a claim falls within the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DATED this 1st day of December, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-00218-SMM--MEA Document 7 Filed 12/01/05 Page 3 of 3