Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/2709656/Valenzuela-v-Arpaio-Document-No-3
Timestamp: 2019-09-21 20:40:03
Document Index: 136055878

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

Valenzuela v. Arpaio - Document No. 3 | Complaint | Lawsuit
ORDER Pla's Application to proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted; the Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim, pla shall have 30 days to file an Amended Complaint; If pla fails to comply with this Court's order, the Clerk of Cour t must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice that states that the dismissal counts as a "strike" under 28 USC Sec 1915(g); Clerk shall provide pla with a current court-approved form for filing a civil rights complaint Special Prisoner Deadline due by 12/20/2006.. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 11/16/06. (SBU, ) 2:2006cv02694 Arizona District Court
speichernValenzuela v. Arpaio - Document No. 3 für später speichern
Torrence v. Simmons, 10th Cir. (2003)
Valenzuela v. Arpaio Doc.
9 Cesar Valenzuela, ) No. CV 06-2694-PHX-MHM (MEA)
12 Joe M. Arpaio, )
Plaintiff Cesar Valenzuela, confined in the Maricopa County Durango Jail, has filed
a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed
§ 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. The Court will assess an
initial partial filing fee of $30.82. 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 the fees according to the statutory formula.
a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
Case 2:06-cv-02694-MHM--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 1 of 18
1 claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may
2 be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
3 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the
4 allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint
5 before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000)
6 (en banc). The Court is required to grant leave to amend “if a complaint can possibly be
7 saved” but not if a complaint “lacks merit entirely.” Id. at 1129. The Court therefore should
8 grant leave to amend if the pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts or if it
9 appears at all possible that the defect can be corrected. Id. at 1130.
10 The Court should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type
11 of advice “would undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v.
12 Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to decide
13 whether the court was required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff’s Complaint
14 will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend because the Complaint may
15 possibly be saved by amendment.
16 III. Complaint
17 Plaintiff names Sheriff Joe M. Arpaio as Defendant. The Complaint contains 11
18 counts, which concern conditions at the Jail. In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that the Jail cells
19 are overcrowded, which causes so much noise that Plaintiff cannot sleep or hear the
20 television, and there are many inmates using the bathrooms and insufficient cleaning
21 supplies, which causes the bathrooms to smell bad and be slippery. In Count II, Plaintiff
22 alleges that his right to day room access is violated because there is insufficient seating for
23 all the inmates. In Count III, Plaintiff alleges that his right to natural light and warm
24 temperatures is violated. In Count V1, Plaintiff alleges that his right to access to reading
25 material has been violated. In Count VI, Plaintiff alleges that his right to religious services
26 has been violated. In Count VII, Plaintiff alleges that his rights have been violated because
27 he has been provided with only 5 post cards and 1 pencil per week. In Count VIII, Plaintiff
There is no Count IV.
Case 2:06-cv-02694-MHM--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 2 of 18
1 alleges that his right to a blanket change each month and sufficient blankets to keep him
2 warm has been violated. In Count IX, Plaintiff alleges that he has been denied his right to
3 the assistance of a law clerk with the necessary legal experience. In Count X, Plaintiff
4 alleges that he has been denied his right to the exercise areas one hour per day, six days per
5 week. In Count XI, Plaintiff alleges that he has been denied his right to three meals per day,
6 served by screened workers with food handler cards. In Count XII, Plaintiff alleges that his
7 right to clean clothes and towels has been violated because he receives a change of
8 underwear and towels only once per week.
9 For relief, Plaintiff seeks to have Defendant held in contempt, better medical attention,
10 damages, qualified professionals cooking and serving meals, and the population problem
11 solved.
12 IV. Failure to State a Claim
13 In order to recover under § 1983, a plaintiff must show: (1) violation of a right
14 protected by the Constitution or federal law; (2) that was proximately caused; (3) by conduct
15 of a “person” named as a defendant; (4) acting under color of state law. See Crumpton v.
16 Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991).
17 A. Failure to Link Harm to Defendant
18 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a specific
19 injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link between the
20 injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).
21 To state a claim against a supervisory official, the civil rights complainant must allege that
22 the supervisory official personally participated in the constitutional deprivation or that the
23 supervisory official was aware of widespread abuses and, with deliberate indifference to the
24 inmate’s constitutional rights, failed to take action to prevent further misconduct. See Ortez
25 v. Washington County, Or., 88 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 1996); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,
26 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Monell v.
27 New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). There is no
28 respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and, therefore, a defendant’s position as the
Case 2:06-cv-02694-MHM--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 3 of 18
1 supervisor of persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not impose
2 liability. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691-92; Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045.
3 Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Arpaio personally participated in any
4 constitutional deprivation or that he was aware of widespread abuses and, with deliberate
5 indifference to the inmate’s constitutional rights, failed to take action to prevent further
6 misconduct, or that he formed policies that resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff fails to
7 link Defendant Arpaio to the allegations in the Complaint; the Complaint fails to state a claim
8 against Defendant Arpaio.
9 B. Failure to Allege a Constitutional Violation
10 In addition to failing to link the harms alleged to the conduct of the named Defendant,
11 Plaintiff fails to allege a constitutional violation in any of the counts.
12 Allegations regarding the conditions of confinement can state constitutional claims
13 cognizable under § 1983. A pretrial detainee’s claim for unconstitutional conditions of
14 confinement arises from the Due Process Clause rather than from the Eighth Amendment
15 prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979).
16 Nevertheless, the Eighth Amendment provides a minimum standard of care for determining
17 a plaintiff’s rights as a pretrial detainee. Anderson v. Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1312-13 (9th Cir.
18 1995) (citing Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991)). To
19 prevail on an unconstitutional conditions claim under an Eighth Amendment standard of care,
20 a plaintiff, whether a pretrial detainee or a convict, must show that defendants were
21 “deliberately indifferent” to the alleged constitutional violations. Redman, 942 F.2d at 1443;
22 Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03 (1991).
23 To comply with the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual
24 punishment, a prison must provide prisoners with “adequate food, clothing, shelter,
25 sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th
26 Cir. 1982). The minimum standard allowed by the Due Process Clause is the same as that
27 allowed by the Eighth Amendment for convicted persons. Hamm v. Dekalb County, 774
28 F.2d 1567, 1574 (11th Cir. 1985). However, this does not mean that federal courts can or
Case 2:06-cv-02694-MHM--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 4 of 18
1 should interfere whenever prisoners are inconvenienced or suffer de minimis injuries. See
2 Bell, 441 U.S. at 539 n.21 (noting that a de minimis level of imposition does not rise to a
3 constitutional violation).
4 V. Leave to Amend
5 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state
6 a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first
7 amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail
8 Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use
9 the court-approved form, the Court may strike the amended complaint and dismiss this action
10 without further notice to Plaintiff.
11 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First
12 Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its
13 entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original
14 Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count.
15 A first amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963
16 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542,
17 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat an original complaint as
18 nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the original
19 complaint is waived if it is not raised in a first amended complaint. King, 814 F.2d at 567.
20 VI. Warnings
21 A. Release
22 Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee within 120 days of his release.
25 in dismissal.
Case 2:06-cv-02694-MHM--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 5 of 18
1 B. Address Changes
2 Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address 10 days before the move
3 is effective, if practicable. See LRCiv 83.3(d). Plaintiff must not include a motion for other
4 relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal.
5 C. Copies
6 Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every document that he files for use by the
7 Court. See LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without
8 further notice to Plaintiff.
9 D. Possible “Strike”
10 Because the Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a claim, if Plaintiff fails
11 to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in this Order, the
12 dismissal will count as a “strike” under the “3-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
13 Under the 3-strikes provision, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil
14 judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior
15 occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a
16 court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious,
17 or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under
18 imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
19 E. Possible Dismissal
20 Plaintiff is warned that failure to timely comply with every provision of this Order,
21 including these warnings, may result in dismissal of this action without further notice. See
22 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with
23 any order of the Court).
24 IT IS ORDERED:
25 (1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, filed with the Complaint,
26 is granted.
27 (2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency,
28 Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $30.82.
Case 2:06-cv-02694-MHM--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 6 of 18
1 (3) The Complaint (Doc. #1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has
2 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended complaint in compliance with
3 this Order.
4 (4) If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of Court
5 must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice that
6 states that the dismissal counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
7 (5) The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff the court-approved form for filing a civil
8 rights complaint by a prisoner.
9 DATED this 16th day of November, 2006.
Case 2:06-cv-02694-MHM--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 7 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-02694-MHM--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 8 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-02694-MHM--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 9 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-02694-MHM--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 10 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-02694-MHM--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 11 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-02694-MHM--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 12 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-02694-MHM--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 13 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-02694-MHM--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 14 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-02694-MHM--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 15 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-02694-MHM--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 16 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-02694-MHM--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 17 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-02694-MHM--MEA Document 3 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 18 of 18
Dokumente ähnlich wie Valenzuela v. Arpaio - Document No. 3
Michael Manla