Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00092/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00092-4/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

JDDL 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Lee Timberman, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-0092-PHX-RCB (DKD)

ORDER

On January 13, 2012, Plaintiff Robert Lee Timberman, who is confined in the Arizona

State Prison Complex-Winslow in St.Johns, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and a Motion

for Appointment of Counsel. In a February 2, 2012 Order, the Court granted the Application

to Proceed, denied the Motion for Appointment of Counsel, and dismissed the Complaint

because Plaintiff had failed to comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4. The Court

gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in

the Order. 

On February 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel and a First

Amended Complaint. In a March 16, 2012 Order, the Court denied the Motion for

Appointment of Counsel and dismissed the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a

claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended complaint that cured the

Case 2:12-cv-00092-RCB--DKD Document 16 Filed 07/19/12 Page 1 of 7
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

JDDL 28 - 2 -

deficiencies identified in the Order.

On April 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a third Motion for Appointment of Counsel and a

Second Amended Complaint. In a May 11, 2012 Order, the Court denied the third Motion

for Appointment of Counsel and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint because Plaintiff

had failed to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court gave

Plaintiff 30 days to file a third amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in

the Order.

On June 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 15).

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

be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does not

demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).

“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice.” Id.

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for

relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial

Case 2:12-cv-00092-RCB--DKD Document 16 Filed 07/19/12 Page 2 of 7
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 - 3 -

experience and common sense.” Id. at 1950. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual

allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there

are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 1951.

But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts

must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th

Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent standards

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,

94 (2007) (per curiam)).

II. Third Amended Complaint

In his three-count Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues the following Defendants:

GEO Corporation, Doe Corporation, GEO Corporation Correctional Officers John Doe I and

John Doe II, and Arizona Department of Corrections Correctional Officers John Doe III and

John Doe IV.

In Count One, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment regarding

a threat to his safety. Plaintiff asserts that he was secured with hand and leg restraints and

placed on a bus to be transferred from a prison in Oklahoma to a prison in Arizona. He

claims that he immediately informed Defendants John Doe I and II that the hand restraints

were too tight and were cutting off the circulation to his hands, but Defendants John Doe I

and II ignored his complaints. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants John Doe I and II observed

Plaintiff’s wrists change color and become swollen, but continued to ignore Plaintiff’s

requests to have the hand restraints loosened. Plaintiff contends that within one hour of

entering the bus, Defendants John Doe I and II knew the restraints were too tight, knew “of

the substantial risk of serious harm and injury [from] having the hand restrain[t]s too tight,”

and knew that there was a risk “to Plaintiff’s safety and/or the possible loss of limb.”

Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Defendants John Doe I and II’s deliberate indifference and

failure to loosen the hand restraints, Plaintiff has suffered permanent damage and injury to

his right hand, wrist and forearm.

In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment regarding

Case 2:12-cv-00092-RCB--DKD Document 16 Filed 07/19/12 Page 3 of 7
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 - 4 -

a threat to his safety. Plaintiff asserts that after he arrived at the Arizona prison, he informed

Defendants John Doe III and IV of the injuries to his wrists and hands from the hand

restraints being too tight and told them that he had severe pain and a lack of mobility.

Plaintiff contends that it was clear that he urgently needed medical attention and that his

condition would worsen if he did not receive immediate medical attention. Plaintiff alleges

that Defendants John Doe III and IV did not arrange for Plaintiff to be seen by medical

personnel, replaced the hand restraints, and placed Plaintiff on another bus to be transferred

to a different Arizona prison. 

Plaintiff asserts that during the bus ride, he informed Defendants John Doe III and IV

that he was suffering severe pain and, in retaliation, Defendant John Doe III would jerk the

steering wheel of the bus to cause Plaintiff’s body to be “tossed around within the passenger

compartment of the bus[,] which caused Plaintiff, and similarly situated inmates, to collide

with one-another and those fixtures within the passenger compartment.” Plaintiff also

contends that Defendant John Doe IV would direct Defendant John Doe III to jerk the

steering wheel in response to Plaintiff’s or other inmates’ requests for medical treatment or

to have their hand restraints loosened. Plaintiff claims that Defendants John Doe III and IV

were deliberately indifferent to his safety, medical condition, and serious medical needs, and

that, as a result, he has suffered permanent damage to his right hand, wrist, and forearm, and

nightmares and other psychological trauma.

In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants John Doe I, II, III, and IV’s failure

to loosen his hand restraints constitutes deliberate indifference in violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment.

In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment and monetary

damages.

III. Failure to State a Claim

A. Defendants GEO Corporation and Doe Corporation

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 2:12-cv-00092-RCB--DKD Document 16 Filed 07/19/12 Page 4 of 7
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 - 5 -

injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377

(1976). 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 v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S.

658, 691-92 (1978); Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 1992); Taylor v. List,

880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens

and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the

official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948.

Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants GEO Corporation and Doe Corporation

personally participated in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, were aware of a

deprivation and failed to act, or formed policies that resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries. He has

made no allegations at all against Defendants GEO Corporation and Doe Corporation. Thus,

the Court will dismiss without prejudice Defendants GEO Corporation and Doe Corporation.

B. Count Three

The Court will dismiss Count Three because it is entirely duplicative of Plaintiff’s

allegations in Counts One and Two. 

IV. John Doe Defendants

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated deliberate indifference claims in Count One

against Defendants John Does I and II and in Count Two against Defendants John Does III

and IV. Although Plaintiff has alleged his claim with enough specificity to require an answer

from these individuals, the Court will not direct that service be made on the John Doe

Defendants at this time. 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. 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 anonymous defendant. 

Plaintiff has not explained why he has not supplied the names of the John Doe

Defendants. It is unclear why Plaintiff could not identify them from any related incident

Case 2:12-cv-00092-RCB--DKD Document 16 Filed 07/19/12 Page 5 of 7
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 - 6 -

reports or logs from the bus trips. It is also unclear why Plaintiff has not been able to obtain

their true names since the incident. 

However, the Court will not dismiss the Third Amended Complaint at this time. See

Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (where identity of alleged

defendants is unknown prior to filing of complaint, 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). The

Court will give Plaintiff 30 days to respond to this Order in a written pleading entitled

“Response.” Plaintiff’s Response must include either (1) the name of at least one of the John

Doe Defendants or (2) an explanation of what Plaintiff has done to try to learn their names,

a description of what discovery he would undertake to learn their names, and the identity of

at least one person who could be served with discovery. If Plaintiff fails to timely file his

Response, this case will be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice.

V. 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.

Case 2:12-cv-00092-RCB--DKD Document 16 Filed 07/19/12 Page 6 of 7
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 - 7 -

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) Count Three is dismissed without prejudice.

(2) Defendants GEO Corporation and Doe Corporation are dismissed without

prejudice.

(3) Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff must file a Response to this

Order that includes either (1) the name of at least one of the John Doe Defendants or (2) an

explanation of what Plaintiff has done to try to learn their names, a description of what

discovery he would undertake to learn their names, and the identity of at least one person

who could be served with discovery. 

(4) If Plaintiff fails to file a Response within 30 days, the Clerk of Court must enter

a judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to

Plaintiff.

DATED this 18th day of July, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00092-RCB--DKD Document 16 Filed 07/19/12 Page 7 of 7