Olmos v. Stokes
| Decision Date | 10 May 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 10-2564-PHX-GMS (MEA),CV 10-2564-PHX-GMS (MEA) |
| Parties | Timothy P. Olmos, et al., Plaintiffs, v. David Stokes, II, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs "Motion For Enlargement Of Time To File First Amended Complaint" (Doc. 19), "Motion For Order To Return Of Documents Not Filed By Clerk" (Doc. 20), First Amended Complaint (Doc. 21), "Affidavit In Support Of Complaint (Vol. II, §§ 47-85)" (Doc. 22), "Motion For Leave To Suspend Enforcement Of Local Rules Upon Pro Se Litigant" (Doc. 23), "Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Leave To Suspend Enforcement Of Local Rules Upon Pro Se Litigant" (Doc. 24), and "Motion For Assistance In Locating Select Defendants For Service Of Pleadings" (Doc. 25).
On November 28, 2010, Plaintiff Timothy P. Olmos, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence (ASPC-Florence), filed "Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To File Lengthy Complaint And Related Pleadings" (Doc. 1). In conjunction with his Motion, Plaintiff Olmos submitted the following documents which were lodged in this case by theClerk of Court: a pro se "Civil Rights Complaint By A Prisoner" (Doc. 2), which included a "Complaint Addendum" (Docs. 2 [part] and 3); a "Notice Of Appearance As Lead Plaintiff (Doc. 4); an "Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By A Prisoner Civil (Non-Habeas)" (Doc. 5); a certified "Inmate Bank Account" statement (Doc. 6); an "Affidavit In Support Of Complaint" (Doc. 7); a "Memorandum Establishing Conformance With 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)" (Doc. 8), which included "Appendices To Memorandum Establishing Conformance With 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)"; and an "Ex Parte Motion To Modify Requirements For Service Of Process" (Doc. 10).
By Order filed February 9, 2011 (Doc. 11), the Court granted "Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To File Lengthy Complaint And Related Pleadings" (Doc. 1) in part, to the extent that the Court directed the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff's lodged "Civil Rights Complaint By A Prisoner" (Doc. 2); "Notice Of Appearance As Lead Plaintiff" (Doc. 4); "Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By A Prisoner Civil (Non-Habeas)" (Doc. 5); certified "Inmate Bank Account" statement (Doc. 6); "Affidavit In Support Of Complaint" (Doc. 7); and "Ex Parte Motion To Modify Requirements For Service Of Process" (Doc. 10). "Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To File Lengthy Complaint And Related Pleadings" (Doc. 1) was denied in part, to the extent that the Court directed the Clerk of Court not to file Plaintiffs' lodged 556-page "Complaint Addendum" (Docs. 2 [part] and 3) and "Memorandum Establishing Conformance With 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)" (Doc. 8).
The Court's Order also directed that this action may not proceed as a class action, denied as moot the "Notice Of Appearance As Lead Plaintiff" and "Ex Parte Motion To Modify Requirements For Service Of Process," granted the "Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By A Prisoner Civil (Non-Habeas)," assessed an initial partial filing fee, dismissed the "Civil Rights Complaint By A Prisoner" for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and gave Plaintiff Olmos 30 days from the filing date of the Order to file a first amended complaint in compliance with the Order. Lastly, the Order dismissed Plaintiffs David Stokes, II; James Walker; Jose Ulloa; Roger Clark; William McEnany; and "all others similarly situated" from this action.
On February 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a "Motion For Enlargement Of Time To File First Amended Complaint" (Doc. 19), in which Plaintiff seeks a 30-day enlargement of time to file his First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs Motion will be granted and Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Doc. 21), which was filed on March 14, 2011, will be accepted as being timely filed.
On March 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a "Motion For Leave To Suspend Enforcement Of Local Rules Upon Pro Se Litigant" (Doc. 23) and "Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Leave To Suspend Enforcement Of Local Rules Upon Pro Se Litigant" (Doc. 24). In his Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court accept his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 21) with "a slight modification to the original forms provided by the Clerk." Plaintiffs Motion will be granted to the extent that Court will accept Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in the form that it was filed.
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-defendant-unlawfully-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 aclaim 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 1950. Thus, although a plaintiffs 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)).
Plaintiff should take notice that all causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived. Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990) (); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the Court will consider only those claims specifically asserted in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Doc. 21) with respect to only those Defendants specifically named in the First Amended Complaint.
Named as Defendants in the First Amended Complaint are: (1) Charles L. Ryan, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC); (2) GEO Group, Inc. (GEO), Private Prison Contractor-Operator at the Central Arizona Correctional Facility (CACF); (3) Compass Group-North America Division, d.b.a. Canteen Correctional Services (Canteen), Food Services Contractor at all ADC-run prison units; (4) Keefe Group, d.b.a. Keefe Commissary Network (Keefe), Inmate Store Contractor at every prison unit housing ADC inmates; (5) Janice K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona; (6) Ferris D. Ahee, Dentist at theWinchester Unit of the Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson (ASPC-Tucson); (7) Daniel Cardoza, Lieutenant at the North Unit of ASPC-Florence; (8) "Unknown ADC Security Officer(s)" at the Mail Room of the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis (ASPC-Lewis) and/or the Morey Unit of ASPC-Lewis; (9) "Unknown ADC Administrator(s)"; (10) Eric Hall, Correctional Officer (CO) IV at the Winchester Unit of ASPC-Tucson; (11) Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General; (12) Allen Ortega, CO II/SSU Officer at ASPC-Florence Complex Administration; and (13) Timothy Brockman, Captain at ASPC-Florence Complex Administration.
Plaintiff alleges 15 counts in the First Amended Complaint and seeks a jury trial, declaratory and injunctive relief, appointment of a special master, all fees and costs, and compensatory and punitive monetary damages, with compound interest.
In Count I, Plaintiff claims that his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by Defendant GEO's practice of operating "CACF with constantly-illuminated dorms, including the dorm that Plaintiff was housed in." In support of his claim, Plaintiff contends that "constantly-illuminated dorms impose physical and psychological harm with no legitimate penological justification." Plaintiff alleges that the actions of Defendant GEO "posed an unreasonable risk of serious damage to Plaintiff Olmos' future health."
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citations and citations omitted). The subjective prong requires the inmate to demonstrate that the deprivation was a product of "deliberate indifference" by prison personnel. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03 (1991). Such indifference can only occur if "the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the...
To continue reading
Request your trial