Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02316/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02316-1/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 action.

TERMPSREF

SC

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bobby Ray Sharp, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-2316-PHX-DGC (JRI)

ORDER

Plaintiff Bobby Ray Sharp, who is confined in the Lower Buckeye Jail in Phoenix,

Arizona, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 through counsel and

paid the $350.00 filing fee. (Doc.# 1.)1

 The Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to

amend. (Doc.# 11.) Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc.# 12.) The Court

will order Defendants Maricopa County and Arpaio to answer Plaintiff’s claims for

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in the First Amended Complaint and will

dismiss the remaining claims 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

claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may

Case 2:08-cv-02316-DGC Document 13 Filed 03/12/09 Page 1 of 4
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 -

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

Plaintiff alleges violation of his constitutional right to adequate medical care. He sues

Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph

Arpaio, Maricopa County Correctional Health Services, and John Does I-X and Black

Corporations I-V. Plaintiff seeks compensatory relief. 

Plaintiff alleges the following facts: In March 2008, while he was incarcerated at the

Lower Buckeye Jail, Plaintiff felt an abnormal growth on his rear palate. He experienced

shortness of breath and severe pain in his mouth about which he “voiced . . . concerns” to

unidentified jail staff. He was not treated but was instead ordered to his cell. The growth

and pain dissipated overnight. In the following weeks, Plaintiff began to lose approximately

10-15 pounds a week, but nurses dismissed his concerns by attributing the lost weight to

Plaintiff’s new exercise regimen. Plaintiff believed something else was causing the weight

loss, but his concerns were dismissed. Two or three months after the growth had dissolved,

Plaintiff became very ill and experienced a high fever, shortness of breath, excruciating pain,

and swelling throughout his body. Plaintiff was “frequently unable to see the nursing staff”

because he lacked the strength or assistance to do so. Plaintiff’s requests to go to the

emergency room were disregarded by nursing staff and he was only provided cold water to

bring down his temperature. About six months after the growth had dissolved, Plaintiff was

taken to the Maricopa County Hospital, where a cardiologist informed Plaintiff that a cyst

in his throat had ruptured, infecting his body and attacking his muscles. 

III. Failure 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, a plaintiff must allege that he

suffered a specific injury as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must

Case 2:08-cv-02316-DGC Document 13 Filed 03/12/09 Page 2 of 4
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 -

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. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and Correctional Health Services

As the Court previously informed Plaintiff, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

(MCSO) and Maricopa County Correctional Health Services (CHS) are not proper

Defendants. (See doc.# 11.) 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. Similarly, CHS is an administrative creation of the County to

provide medical care to inmates. Accordingly, MCSO and CHS will be dismissed.

B. Fictitiously-Named Defendants

Plaintiff also again sues John Does I-X and Black Corporations I-V. 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. The Ninth Circuit has held that where identity is unknown prior to the filing of

a complaint, the 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. Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d

1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)).

If Plaintiff discovers the identities of these fictitiously-named defendants through the

discovery process, or otherwise, he may seek leave of the Court to amend to name these

individuals.

IV. Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required

Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that Maricopa County and Sheriff Arpaio had a policy or

custom to deny constitutionally adequate medical care for his serious medical needs. These

Defendants will be required to respond to these allegations.

///

Case 2:08-cv-02316-DGC Document 13 Filed 03/12/09 Page 3 of 4
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 -

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Maricopa County Correctional

Health Services, John Does I-X, and Black Corporations I-V are dismissed without

prejudice. (Doc.# 12.)

(2) Defendants Maricopa County and Sheriff Arpaio must answer Plaintiff’s claims

for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs contained in the First

Amended Complaint. (Doc.# 12.) 

(3) Plaintiff must serve Defendants Maricopa County and Sheriff Arpaio with the

First Amended Complaint. 

(4) Each Defendant must answer the First Amended Complaint or otherwise

respond by appropriate motion within 30 days from the date the First Amended Complaint

is served on it or him. 

(5) Any answer or response must state the specific Defendant by name on whose

behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, response, or other motion or paper that

does not identify the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed.

(5) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin 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 March, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02316-DGC Document 13 Filed 03/12/09 Page 4 of 4