Opinion
No. CV 05-2156-PHX-DGC (CRP).
November 4, 2005
ORDER
This is a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed by an inmate confined in the Durango Jail in Phoenix, Arizona. The Court will dismiss the action with leave to amend.
A. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Filing Fee.
Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for this action. No initial partial filing fee will be assessed by this Order. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the Court will direct the appropriate agency to collect monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to Plaintiff's trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in Plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
Plaintiff should take notice that if he is released before the filing fee is paid in full, he must pay the remaining unpaid amount of the filing fee within 120 days of the date of his release. If Plaintiff fails to pay the remainder of the filing fee within 120 days of the date of his release, the action will be dismissed, unless Plaintiff shows good cause, in writing, why he is unable to pay the remainder of the filing fee.
B. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints.
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if Plaintiff has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim up on 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 the complaint before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) ( en banc). The Court is required to grant leave to amend "if a complaint can possibly be saved," but not if the Complaint "lacks merit entirely." Id. at 1129. A court therefore should grant leave to amend if the pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, or if it appears at all possible that the defect can be corrected.Id. at 1130. The Court should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type of advice "would undermine the district judges' role as impartial decisionmakers." Pliler v. Ford, 124 S. Ct. 2441, 2446 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n. 13 (declining to decide whether court was required to inform litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff's Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend because the complaint may possibly be saved by amendment.
C. Complaint.
Plaintiff sues Maricopa County and its sheriff, Joseph M. Arpaio. Plaintiff alleges that he has itchy skin and fears contracting contagious diseases from the unsanitary bathroom conditions at the Durango Jail. He also alleges that he suffers digestive problems and weight loss from being forced to eat on his bunk. His bunk is under a cold air vent, and he wakes up covered in dust. He also fears infection from improperly handled food. Finally, he claims that he is unable to send personal mail. For each claim, Plaintiff asserts that his "civil rights as a pretrial detaines as per Hart v. MCSO/Hill" were violated. Among the types of relief he seeks are a request for a toxicology examination and an award of an unspecified amount of punitive and "contempt" damages.
D. Failure to State a Claim. 1. Maricopa County
Plaintiff sues Maricopa County. A municipality may not be held liable unless its policy or custom caused the constitutional injury. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 166 (1993);Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 688-89 (1978). In other words, a municipality or other local government entity may be sued for constitutional torts committed by its officials according to an official policy, practice, or custom. Cortez v. County of Los Angeles, 294 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91). There are no allegations to show that Plaintiff's constitutional claims were the result of a policy or practice of Maricopa County. This deficiency may possibly be cured by amendment.
2. Sheriff Arpaio
Plaintiff sues Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio in his official capacity. There are no other allegations that otherwise pertain to him. When a person is sued in an official capacity, the real party in interest is the entity of which the officer is an agent. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985) (quoting Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n. 55 (1978)). In their official capacities, "[c]ounty officials can be held liable under § 1983 if they act as "lawmakers or . . . those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy." Berry v. Baca, 379 F.3d 764, 767 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). Plaintiff must also show that an official municipal policy caused him to suffer a constitutional tort. Berry, 379 F.3d at 767. The entity may also be liable when its custom played a part in the violation of federal law. Kentucky, 473 U.S. at 166. In this action, Plaintiff has not alleged that an official policy or custom by Defendant Arpaio caused him to suffer harm. This deficiency may possibly be cured by amendment. 3. Enforcement of Hart v. Hill
Plaintiff claims that conditions of confinement violate an Amended Judgment in Hart v. Hill, No. CIV 77-0479-PHX-EHC (MS) (D. Ariz.). Jurisdiction to enforce the judgment is retained by the court which entered it. Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 853 (9th Cir. 2004). A civil rights action is not the proper means by which to enforce the decree. Cagle v. Sutherland, 334 F.3d 980, 986 (11th Cir. 2003); Klein v. Zavaras, 80 F.3d 432, 435 (10th Cir. 1996); DeGidio v. Pung, 920 F.2d 525, 534 (8th Cir. 1990); Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1122-23 (5th Cir. 1986). Standing alone, remedial orders cannot serve as a substantive basis for a § 1983 claim for damages because such orders do not create "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." Green, 788 F.3d at 1123-24. Remedial decrees are the means by which unconstitutional conditions are corrected but they do not create or enlarge constitutional rights. Id. at 1123.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks to enforce Hart v. Hill, his claim is not properly brought in this action. Instead, his allegations must separately state a violation of a constitutional right. At this juncture, as described supra, Plaintiff's allegations do not state a claim for a constitutional violation. He has not identified the constitutional rights that were violated by the conditions at the Durango Jail.
E. Leave to Amend.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff may amend his Complaint to cure the deficiencies out lined above. The Clerk of Court will be directed to provide Plaintiff with a Court-approved form for filing a civil rights complaint. Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original Complaint by reference. Any amended complaint submitted by Plaintiff should be clearly designated as such on the face of the document.
Plaintiff is also reminded that in an Amended Complaint, he may only include one claim per count. The "one claim per count" rule is set forth in the form Complaint and accompanying instructions, and is a requirement imposed by the local rules of this Court. See LRCiv 3.4(a) (complaint must be in accordance with the instructions provided with the form).
An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the original pleading is treated as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Thus, causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).
F. Address Changes.
In the notice of assignment issued in this action (Doc. #2), Plaintiff was advised he must file a notice of change of address if his address changes. Plaintiff is again reminded that at all times during the pendency of this action, Plaintiff shall immediately advise the Court of any change of address and its effective date. Such notice shall be captioned "NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS." Plaintiff shall serve a copy of the Notice of Change of Address on all opposing parties. The notice shall contain only information pertaining to the change of address and its effective date, and shall not include a motion for other relief. Failure to timely file a notice of change of address may result in the dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
G. Warning of Possible Dismissal.
Plaintiff should take note that if he fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, this action will be dismissed without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any order of the Court). Moreover, 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 dismissal of this action will count as a "strike" under the "three strikes" provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
(2) Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for this action. Plaintiff is assessed no initial partial filing fee. All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this Court's Order to the appropriate government agency filed concurrently herewith.
(3) The Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file an Amended Complaint in compliance with this Order.
(4) The Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date this Order is filed. Upon entry of judgment, the Clerk shall make an entry on the docket in this matter indicating that the dismissal of this action falls within the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
(5) Aside from the two copies of the petition or amended petition that must be submitted pursuant to LRCiv 3.5(a), a clear, legible copy of every pleading or other document filed shall accompany each original pleading or other document filed with the Clerk for use by the District Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom the case is assigned. See LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the pleading or document being stricken without further notice to Plaintiff.
(6) The Clerk of Court is directed to provide to Plaintiff a current court-approved form for filing a civil rights complaint by a prisoner.
FORM