Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01399/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01399-0/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

MDR

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mario Montes, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Officer Rodriguez, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1399-PHX-DGC (JRI)

ORDER

Plaintiff Mario Montes, who is confined in the Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail,

has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court will dismiss the action.

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. 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 assess an initial partial filing fee of $4.50. The remainder of the 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 Court will enter a separate

Order requiring the appropriate government agency to collect and forward the fees according

to the statutory formula. 

Case 2:07-cv-01399-DGC--JRI Document 3 Filed 08/08/07 Page 1 of 5
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 -

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). Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed without leave to amend because, given

the level of factual detail in the Complaint, the defects cannot be corrected.

III. Complaint

In his one-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Defendants Officer Rodriguez and

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that, after

falling asleep while waiting for Defendant Rodriguez and a nurse to return to his intake cell

with his medication, he was awaked by Defendant Rodriguez yelling and cursing at him.

Plaintiff states that he walked to the entrance of his cell and cursed at Defendant Rodriguez.

Then, Defendant Rodriguez allegedly pushed Plaintiff, Plaintiff pushed back, and a fistfight

ensued. Plaintiff states that several unidentified officers joined the fray and those

unidentified officers proceeded to “take [Plaintiff] down” by jumping on him and choking

and scratching him as they subdued him. Plaintiff alleges that he received scratches on his

face, his neck and back were hurt by the unknown officers, and he continues to have

headaches and back and neck pain. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and wants Defendant

Rodriguez to be fired.

IV. Failure to Link Defendant Arpaio 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

Case 2:07-cv-01399-DGC--JRI Document 3 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 5
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 -

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, 436 U.S. at 691-92. There is no respondeatsuperior 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 Arpaio personally participated in the

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. Nor does Plaintiff allege that Defendant Arpaio formed policies that resulted

in Plaintiff’s injuries. Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a link between Defendant

Arpaio’s conduct and Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against

Defendant Arpaio.

V. Failure to State a Claim

The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause protects pretrial detainees from

excessive force that amounts to punishment. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175,

1197 (9th Cir. 2002). “[T]he Fourth Amendment sets ‘the applicable constitutional

limitations’ for considering claims of excessive force during pretrial detention.” Id. (quoting

Pierce v. Multnomah County, 76 F.3d 1032, 1043 (9th Cir. 1996).

The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the use of reasonable force. Tatum v. City

and County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir. 2006). Whether the force was

excessive depends on “whether the officers’ actions [were] ‘objectively reasonable’ in light

Case 2:07-cv-01399-DGC--JRI Document 3 Filed 08/08/07 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or

motivation.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989); Tatum, 441 F.3d at 1095; Lolli

v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 415 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court must balance the nature

and quality of the intrusion against the countervailing governmental interests. Lolli, 351 F.3d

at 415. Moreover, 

[t]he “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be

judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,

rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. . . . . “Not every

push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the

peace of a judge’s chambers,” violates the Fourth Amendment.

The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the

fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second

judgments – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and

rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in

a particular situation.

Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-97 (citation omitted).

Plaintiff has failed to plead facts suggesting that Defendant Rodriguez’s push, in

response to Plaintiff walking to the cell door and cursing back at Rodriguez, was objectively

unreasonable. See Graham. Plaintiff’s facts show that the fistfight resulted from Plaintiff

pushing Defendant Rodriguez and that the unidentified officers’ restraint was necessary to

restore order.

Because Plaintiff has described in significant detail the event giving rise to his cause

of action, the Complant could not be cured by the allegation of other facts. Therefore,

Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed without leave to amend. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at

1127-29.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, filed with the Complaint,

is granted.

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

Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $4.50.

(3) The Complaint (Doc. #1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

Case 2:07-cv-01399-DGC--JRI Document 3 Filed 08/08/07 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

(4) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the dismissal

for failure to state a claim counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DATED this 7th day of August, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01399-DGC--JRI Document 3 Filed 08/08/07 Page 5 of 5