Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2012cv00779/693576/7
Timestamp: 2017-05-28 16:38:33
Document Index: 38625098

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

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; the Complaint 1 is dismissed for failure to state a claim; Plaintiff has 30 days to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this Order; if Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Clerk must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a "strike" under 28 U for Martinez v. Arpaio :: Justia Dockets & Filings Log In
Martinez v. Arpaio
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; the Complaint 1 is dismissed for failure to state a claim; Plaintiff has 30 days to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this Order; if Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Clerk must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/14/12. (REW)
Gilbert Martinez, III,
Joseph M. Arpaio,
No. CV 12-0779-PHX-DGC (DKD)
Plaintiff Gilbert Martinez, III, who is confined in the Fourth Avenue Jail in Phoenix,
Arizona, 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 Complaint with leave
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee
§ 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The statutory
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.
for failure to state a claim, but because the Complaint may possibly be saved by amendment,
the Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend.
Plaintiff alleges one count for unconstitutional conditions of confinement. He sues
only Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio. Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and
compensatory relief.
Plaintiff alleges the following: on March 23, 2012, he was placed in a cell that had
previously been occupied by a “mental health” inmate. That inmate had left bodily fluids on
the walls, floors, sink, and toilet, and the cell was not sanitized. Plaintiff was denied cleaning
supplies at some point by an unnamed person or persons. Plaintiff fears that the unsanitary
conditions in the cell place him at risk of contracting AIDS or Hepatitis C.
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, to state a valid constitutional
claim, 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).
Plaintiff only sues Sheriff Arpaio. Although Arpaio may be sued for constitutional
violations, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against him.
personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d
“A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was
1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). For an individual to be liable in his official capacity, a plaintiff
must allege that the official acted as a result of a policy, practice, or custom. See Cortez v.
County of Los Angeles, 294 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2001). Further, there is no respondeat
superior liability under § 1983, so a defendant’s position as the supervisor of a someone who
allegedly violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not make him liable. Monell v.
Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.
1989). A supervisor in his individual capacity, “is only liable for constitutional violations
of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the
violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045.
Plaintiff fails to allege any facts against Arpaio. He has not alleged facts to support
that Arpaio enacted or enforced a policy, custom, or practice that resulted in the denial of
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. He also fails to allege facts to support that Arpaio directly
violated his constitutional rights or that Arpaio was aware that Plaintiff’s rights were being
violated but failed to act. Accordingly, Arpaio will be dismissed.
Plaintiff asserts that he was subject to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. A
prison inmate’s claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement arises under the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S.
520 (1979), while a pretrial detainee’s claim for unconstitutional conditions arises under the
Fourteenth Amendment, Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). Nevertheless,
the same standard is applied.
unconstitutional conditions of confinement, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant’s acts or
omissions have deprived the inmate of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities”
and that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to an excessive risk to inmate health
or safety. Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 834 (1994)); see Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1049-50 (9th
Cir. 2002). That is, a plaintiff must allege a constitutional deprivation that is objectively
“sufficiently serious” to result in the denial of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s
necessities.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. While “[i]ndigent inmates have the right to personal
See Frost, 152 F.3d at 1128.
To state a claim for
hygiene supplies such as toothbrushes and soap,” whether conditions of confinement rise to
the level of a constitutional violation may depend, in part, on the duration of an inmate’s
exposure to those conditions. Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 1996)
(citing Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686-87 (1978)).
A plaintiff must also allege facts supporting that a jail official had a “sufficiently
culpable state of mind,” i.e., that the official acted with deliberate indifference to inmate
health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. In defining “deliberate indifference,” the Supreme
Court has imposed a subjective test, “the official must both be aware of the facts from which
draw the inference.” Id. at 837. “‘The circumstances, nature, and duration of a deprivation
of [] necessities must be considered in determining whether a constitutional violation has
occurred.’” Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Johnson v.
Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000)).
Plaintiff fails to allege from whom, when, and how he sought cleaning supplies, and
the responses to his requests. Plaintiff does not identify any basic necessity that he was
denied. Further, he fails to allege facts to support that his conditions of confinement rise to
the level of an excessive risk to him. Plaintiff also fails to allege facts to support that the
Defendant, or anyone else, acted with deliberate indifference to either the denial of basic
necessities or to his conditions of confinement. For these reasons, Plaintiff fails to state a
claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first
amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail
Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails
to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the amended complaint and dismiss this
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.
Because the Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a claim, if Plaintiff fails
to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in this Order, the
Possible “Strike”
dismissal may count as a “strike” under the “3-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Under the 3-strikes provision, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil
judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a
court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious,
or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted. (Doc. 2.)
Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is not assessed an initial partial filing fee.
The Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff has
30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended complaint in compliance with
Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice
that states that the dismissal may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
DATED this 14th day of May, 2012.