Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00640/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00640-0/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Derrick Ray Lee, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Unknown Friday, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-00640-PHX-DLR (JZB)

ORDER 

 On April 9, 2015, Plaintiff Derrick Ray Lee, who is confined in the Maricopa 

County Lower Buckeye Jail (“Jail” or “Lower Buckeye Jail”), filed a pro se civil rights 

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), and an Application to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserted claims for violations of the 

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments against Defendants Officer Friday, Lieutenant Perks, 

Lieutenant A4796, Sergeant A4729, and Sergeant A4617. On May 28, 2015, the Court 

granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and, after screening, 

ordered Defendant Friday to answer Count One and dismissed the remaining claims and 

Defendants without prejudice. (Doc. 5.) 

 On August 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend, and lodged his proposed 

First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 8.) For the reasons below, the Court will grant 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, order the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff’s proposed First 

Amended Complaint, order Defendant Friday to answer Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

claim, and dismiss the remaining claims and Defendants. 

Case 2:15-cv-00640-DLR-JZB Document 10 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 9
- 2 - 

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 

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend 

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] party may 

amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) . 

. . 21 days after service of a responsive pleading.” Further, Rule 15.1(b) of the Local 

Rules of Civil Procedure provides the following: 

If a party files an amended pleading as a matter of course or 

with the opposing party’s written consent, the amending party must file a separate notice of filing the amended pleading. The notice must attach a copy of the amended pleading that indicates in what respect it differs from the pleading which it amends, by bracketing or striking through the text that was deleted and underlining the text that was added. The amended 

pleading must not incorporate by reference any part of the preceding pleading, including exhibits. If an amended 

pleading is filed with the opposing party’s written consent, the notice must so certify. 

LRCiv 15.1(b). 

Here, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Amend on August 14, 2015, before Defendant 

Friday filed his Answer to Plaintiff’s initial Complaint. (Docs. 8, 9.) Further, Plaintiff’s 

proposed First Amended Complaint complies with the requirements of Rule 15.1 of the 

Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Amend and instruct the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended 

Complaint lodged at Doc. 8-1. 

II. Screening of IFP 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 

Case 2:15-cv-00640-DLR-JZB Document 10 Filed 12/14/15 Page 2 of 9
- 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 

defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(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 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. 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 681. 

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)). 

III. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 

 In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his safety was threatened 

and that his First and Fifth Amendment rights were violated while he was detained at 

Lower Buckeye Jail.1

 He names as Defendants Officer Friday, Lieutenant Perks, 

Lieutenant A4796, Sergeant A4729, and Sergeant A4617. Plaintiff requests monetary 

relief, and asks the Court to “impose an investigation into the policy and practice of [the 

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office] denying inmates . . . Equal Protection.” 

 Plaintiff’s factual allegations in his First Amendment Complaint are very similar 

 

1

 Although Plaintiff removes the “Count II” heading in his First Amended Complaint, he appears to assert three different claims in Count One—violations of the 

First, Eighth, and Fifth Amendments. 

Case 2:15-cv-00640-DLR-JZB Document 10 Filed 12/14/15 Page 3 of 9
- 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 

to those in his initial Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Friday ordered 

Plaintiff’s cellmate, Blake Hurlbert, who “worked for” Friday, to assault Plaintiff. On 

January 24, 2015, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Defendant Friday allegedly asked Plaintiff 

to “roll-up,” and informed Plaintiff that he was being moved to a different cell so that 

another inmate who worked for Friday, Micheal Christi, could be housed with Hurlbert. 

Plaintiff responded that he “d[id]n’t want to move because he fe[lt] safe” in his cell. At 

that point, Defendant Friday left. When Friday returned, he asked Hurlbert if Plaintiff had 

agreed to move. Upon learning from Hurlbert that Plaintiff had not agreed to move, 

Friday “balled up a fist,” which he proceeded to “tap[] in his other hand,” and “told Blake 

‘you know what to do.’” Hurlbert then said to Plaintiff, “‘If you don’t want to move[,] 

Lil[] Chief, I’m going to have to kick your ass.’” Plaintiff responded, “‘No, don’t hit 

me,’” but Hurlbert proceeded to punch Plaintiff “over and over,” even after Plaintiff had 

fallen to the ground. Plaintiff “felt as if [Hulrbert] was going to kill [him.]” As a result of 

the assault, Plaintiff claims, he sustained head injuries, a swollen cheek, and bruising on 

his torso. In addition, he continues to suffer from headaches and severe neck pain. 

Plaintiff also asserts that he now suffers from anxiety. 

 Plaintiff also appears to assert that his due process rights were violated after he 

filed a grievance against Defendant Friday based on the conduct described above. 

Plaintiff claims that Friday provided false information regarding his role in the incident, 

and stated that he had ordered—rather than asked—Plaintiff to “roll-up.” After 

Plaintiff’s initial grievance was, apparently,2

 denied, Plaintiff forwarded the grievance as 

“unresolved.” On January 27, 2015, Defendant A4729 responded that he had reviewed 

video footage of the incident and had concluded that “there was no assault.” Defendant 

Perks concurred with Defendant A4729’s decision. Plaintiff appealed this finding, and 

on February 3, 2015, he received a decision from Defendant A4617 indicating that video 

footage of the incident showed Plaintiff “thr[owing] the first punch.” On that basis, 

 

2

 Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the initial stages of the grievance proceedings are somewhat vague. 

Case 2:15-cv-00640-DLR-JZB Document 10 Filed 12/14/15 Page 4 of 9
- 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 

Defendant A4617 concluded that “the shift supervisors[’] response was correct.” 

Plaintiff appealed again, and Defendant A4796 “concur[red] with the finding” on 

February 11, 2015. 

 Plaintiff then forwarded his grievance to the External Referee. On March 9, 2015, 

Plaintiff learned from the Referee’s findings that his assault was “confirmed on video” 

and that Jail staff had been “covering up this fact.” Plaintiff also learned from these 

findings that Defendants had “deprived [him] of the right to Due Process and Equal 

Protection” by reporting that he “was not willing to aid in the prosecution” of his assault, 

even though Plaintiff had indicated that he wanted to press charges against Hurlbert. 

Finally, Plaintiff adds in his proposed First Amended Complaint that Defendants at all 

times acted under color of state law. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim 

 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 

(2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities 

and (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th 

Cir. 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 

1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). 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 allege an 

affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 

423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 

 Although not entirely clear, Plaintiff appears to assert the same claims in his First 

Amended Complaint as he did in his initial Complaint. Plaintiff includes new allegations 

that all of the Defendants were acting under the color of state law. However, these 

allegations do not address the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Complaint identified by the 

Court’s May 28, 2015 Order. 

 Plaintiff asserts that his First and Fifth Amendment rights were violated. Prisoners 

have a First Amendment right to file prison grievances, Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 

559, 567 (9th Cir. 2005), but “[t]here is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance 

Case 2:15-cv-00640-DLR-JZB Document 10 Filed 12/14/15 Page 5 of 9
- 6 - 

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 

procedure,” Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988), and the failure to follow 

grievance procedures does not give rise to a due process claim, see Flournoy v. Fairman, 

897 F. Supp. 350, 354 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (jail grievance procedures did not create a 

substantive right enforceable under § 1983); Spencer v. Moore, 638 F. Supp. 315, 316 

(E.D. Mo. 1986) (violations of grievance system procedures do not deprive inmates of 

constitutional rights). In addition, “[t]he right to petition the government for redress of 

grievances . . . does not guarantee a favorable response, or indeed any response, from 

state officials. Moreover, the First Amendment’s right to redress of grievances is 

satisfied by the availability of a judicial remedy.” Baltoski v. Pretorius, 291 F. Supp. 2d 

807, 811 (N.D. Ind. 2003); see also Ashann-Ra v. Virginia, 112 F. Supp. 2d 559, 569 

(W.D. Va. 2000) (failure to comply with state’s grievance procedure is not actionable 

under § 1983 and does not compromise an inmate’s right of access to the courts). 

 Plaintiff does not allege in his First Amended Complaint that he was denied access 

to an available grievance process. Rather, he alleges that various Defendants failed to 

comply with grievance procedures. As discussed above, such allegations do not give rise 

to a constitutional violation. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for 

violations of his First Amendment and due process rights in his First Amended 

Complaint. 

 To the extent Plaintiff again intends to state an equal protection claim, he fails to 

state a claim for relief. Generally, “[t]o state a claim . . . for a violation of the Equal 

Protection Clause . . . [,] a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with an intent or 

purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class.” 

Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff has not alleged any 

facts to support a claim that Defendants’ actions had a discriminatory aim. Accordingly, 

any equal protection claims against Defendants will be dismissed. 

 Finally, because Plaintiff appears to have combined all of his claims into Count 

One, it is unclear whether he is also attempting to assert Eighth Amendment claims 

against Defendants Perks, A4796, A4729, and A4617. To the extent that he is attempting 

Case 2:15-cv-00640-DLR-JZB Document 10 Filed 12/14/15 Page 6 of 9
- 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 

to assert such claims, he fails to state a claim for relief. To state a claim for failure to 

protect or threats to safety, an inmate must allege facts to support that he was incarcerated 

under conditions posing a substantial risk of harm and that prison officials were 

“deliberately indifferent” to those risks. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33, 

(1994). To adequately allege deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must allege facts to 

support that a defendant knew of, but disregarded, an excessive risk to inmate safety. Id.

at 837. That is, “the official must both [have been] aware of facts from which the 

inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed], and he must 

also [have] draw[n] the inference.” Id. Thus, Plaintiff must allege facts to support when 

and how any particular defendant knew of a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff and that 

the defendant disregarded or failed to take steps to protect Plaintiff. Here, Plaintiff’s 

allegations regarding Defendants Perks, A4796, A4729, and A4617 are limited to the 

way in which they handled Plaintiff’s grievances after the alleged incident occurred. 

Accordingly, to the extent he is asserting Eighth Amendment claims against those 

Defendants, the Court will dismiss those claims. 

V. Claims for Which an Answer Will Be Required 

Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations in Count One state an Eighth 

Amendment claim against Defendant Friday. Therefore, the Court will order Defendant 

Friday to answer Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim. 

VI. Warnings 

a. Release 

 If Plaintiff is released while this case remains pending, and the filing fee has not 

been paid in full, Plaintiff must, within 30 days of his release, either (1) notify the Court 

that he intends to pay the unpaid balance of his filing fee within 120 days of his release, 

or (2) file a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis. Failure to comply 

may result in dismissal of this action. 

b. Address Change 

 Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with 

Case 2:15-cv-00640-DLR-JZB Document 10 Filed 12/14/15 Page 7 of 9
- 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 

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 that: 

 (1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Amend (Doc. 8) and the screening of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. All other 

matters remain referred to the Magistrate Judge for disposition as appropriate. 

 (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 8) is granted. The Clerk of Court shall file 

Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended Complaint lodged at Doc. 8-1. 

 (3) Defendant Friday must answer Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim in the First 

Amended Complaint. 

 (4) All other Defendants and claims are dismissed. 

Case 2:15-cv-00640-DLR-JZB Document 10 Filed 12/14/15 Page 8 of 9
- 9 - 

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) Defendant Friday 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. 

 Dated this 14th day of December, 2015. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00640-DLR-JZB Document 10 Filed 12/14/15 Page 9 of 9