Jones v. Arpaio et al, No. 2:2006cv00544 - Document 12 (D. Ariz. 2006)
Court Description: ORDER granting 8 Motion for Extension of Time to file First Amended Complaint FURTHER ORDERED granting 10, 11 Motions to Set Aside Judgment FURTHER ORDERED that the Clk of Court must vacate and set aside the 6/8/06 Judgment 7 FURTHER ORDERED that the Clk must file Pla's First Amended Complaint 9 FURTHER ORDERED that Dft Arpaio must Answer Pla's First Amended Complaint FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send Pla service packet for Dft Arpaio. Pla shall complete and return the svc pkt to the Court w/in 20 days of the file date of this Order...Service Packet due by 9/5/06 FURTHER ORDERED Dft shall answer the Complaint or otherwise respond by appropriate motion w/in the time provided by applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) Fed.R.Civ.P. FURTHER ORDERED this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 8/15/06. (MAP)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jones v. Arpaio et al 1 Doc. 12 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Gary L. Jones, Plaintiff, 10 11 vs. 12 Joseph M. Arpaio, 13 Defendant. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 06-544-PHX-MHM (ECV) ORDER 15 16 I. Background 17 On February 22, 2006, Plaintiff Gary L. Jones, confined in the Maricopa County 18 Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 19 an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an April 21, 2006 Order, the Court granted 20 the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and dismissed the Complaint, with leave to 21 amend, for failure to state a claim. In that Order, the Court permitted Plaintiff to file an 22 amended complaint within 30 days from the date of the Order and warned Plaintiff that the 23 case would be dismissed without further notice if he failed to timely comply with every 24 provision in the Order. The Court instructed the Clerk of Court to enter a judgment of 25 dismissal without further notice if Plaintiff failed to file timely an amended complaint. 26 27 TERMPSREF 28 Case 2:06-cv-00544-MHM-ECV Document 12 Filed 08/16/2006 Page 1 of 7 Dockets.Justia.com 1 On June 8, 2006, more than 30 days after the April 21, 2006 Order had been filed, the 2 Clerk of Court entered a judgment of dismissal based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 3 the April 21, 2006 Order. 4 II. Pending Motions 5 On June 8, 2006, the same day the Clerk of Court entered judgment, Plaintiff filed a 6 Motion for Extension of Time to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. #8). The motion was 7 signed on June 5, 2006. In the motion, Plaintiff alleged that he had attempted to timely file 8 his amended complaint by giving it to Inmate Legal Services at the Maricopa County Fourth 9 Avenue Jail on May 14, 19, and 23, 2006, but that Inmate Legal Services had returned the 10 amended complaint to him on each occasion. In his motion, Plaintiff requested an extension 11 of time until June 21, 2006, to file his amended complaint. 12 13 On June 12, 2006, the Clerk of Court lodged a copy of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. #9). 14 On June 19, 2006, Plaintiff filed a letter/motion, dated June 15, 2006, requesting that 15 the Court set aside the June 8, 2006 Judgment (Doc. #10). Plaintiff reiterated the allegations 16 in his June 8, 2006 Motion for Extension of Time. 17 On July 11, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment pursuant to Rule 18 60(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. #11). Again reiterating the 19 allegations in his June 8, 2006 Motion for Extension of Time, Plaintiff alleged that he timely 20 submitted his amended complaint to jail authorities and requested that the Court set aside the 21 judgment and accept his amended complaint as timely filed. 22 A. Motions to Set Aside Judgment 23 A court may grant a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal 24 Rules of Civil Procedure if the moving party can show: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, 25 or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud or other misconduct; (4) a 26 void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying 27 relief from the operation of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 28 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985). The Court can grant relief under Rule 60(b) when a TERMPSREF Case 2:06-cv-00544-MHM-ECV -2Document 12 Filed 08/16/2006 Page 2 of 7 1 prisoner has done all he can under the circumstances to meet a deadline. See United States 2 v. Houser, 804 F.2d 565, 569 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Excusable neglect is shown when the 3 appellant has done ‘all he could do under the circumstances’ to perfect an appeal within the 4 time prescribed by the rules.”). Under the “prison mailbox rule,” a complaint is deemed 5 “filed” when delivered by the prisoner to a prison official for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 6 487 U.S. 266, 270-71 (1988); Stillman v. LaMarque, 319 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003); 7 Faile v. Upjohn Co., 988 F.2d 985, 989 (9th Cir. 1992), disapproved of on other grounds, 8 McDowell v.Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 1999). 9 Plaintiff alleges that he gave his amended complaint to prison officials in Inmate 10 Legal Services on May 14, 19, and 23, 2006, and that prison officials thwarted his efforts to 11 comply with the Court’s Order by utilizing a “gatekeeping-procedural-morass-creating 12 function that is designed and intended to hinder the untrained pro se inmate.” In support of 13 his allegation that he repeatedly attempted to file his amended complaint in a timely manner, 14 Plaintiff provided a copy of each Inmate Legal Request, signed by himself and a jail official 15 on May 14, 19, and 23.1 Under these circumstances, relief under Rule 60(b) is appropriate 16 and the Court will vacate the June 8, 2006 Judgment. 17 B. Motion for Extension of Time 18 In his Motion for Extension of Time to File First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff 19 requested until June 21, 2006, to file his amended complaint. The Court finds good cause 20 to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time. 21 Because the Court will grant the motion for extension of time, Plaintiff’s First 22 Amended Complaint, which was lodged on June 12, 2006, was timely filed. The Court will 23 direct the Clerk of Court to file the First Amended Complaint. 24 .... 25 .... 26 27 28 1 In addition, Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time to File First Amended Complaint, although mailed after the deadline for filing the amended complaint, was dated before the Clerk of Court entered judgment. TERMPSREF Case 2:06-cv-00544-MHM-ECV -3Document 12 Filed 08/16/2006 Page 3 of 7 1 III. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against 2 3 a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised 5 claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may 6 be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 7 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 8 IV. First Amended Complaint In his three-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Defendant Joseph M. 9 10 Arpaio. In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Arpaio violated the Eighth 11 Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because he was aware of 12 overcrowding in Plaintiff’s jail pod and chose to ignore the overcrowding. In Count Two, 13 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Arpaio violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against 14 cruel and unusual punishment because there were unclean, unhealthy conditions in the Jail 15 and Defendant Arpaio “knew there was no bleach and did nothing to make his Jail cleaner. 16 He just left us in there in the filth and roaches like animals.” In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges 17 that his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because “detention officers 18 of Joseph Arpaio, under his direction” would not accept grievance forms and threatened to 19 retaliate against him if he did not stop writing grievances. He alleges that he stopped filing 20 grievances because he feared retaliation from Defendant Arpaio and his officers. 21 In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. 22 Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated a claim in Counts One, Two, and Three. 23 Therefore, the Court will order Defendant Arpaio to answer Plaintiff’s First Amended 24 Complaint. 25 .... 26 .... 27 .... 28 TERMPSREF Case 2:06-cv-00544-MHM-ECV -4Document 12 Filed 08/16/2006 Page 4 of 7 1 V. Warnings 2 A. Address Changes 3 Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address 10 days before the move 4 is effective, if practicable. See LRCiv 83.3(d). Plaintiff must not include a motion for other 5 relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal. 6 B. Copies 7 Plaintiff must serve Defendant, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, with a 8 copy of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must be accompanied 9 by a certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, 10 Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCiv 5.4. 11 The Court may strike any filing that fails to comply with these requirements. 12 C. Possible Dismissal 13 Plaintiff is warned that failure to timely comply with every provision of this Order, 14 including these warnings, may result in dismissal of this action without further notice. See 15 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an 16 action for failure to comply with any order of the Court). 17 IT IS ORDERED: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. 18 19 #8) is granted. 20 (2) Plaintiff’s Motions to Set Aside Judgment (Doc. #10 and #11) are granted. 21 (3) The Clerk of Court must vacate and set aside the June 8, 2006 Judgment (Doc. 22 #7). 23 (4) The Clerk of Court must file Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. #9). 24 (5) Defendant Arpaio must answer Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. 25 (6) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including the First 26 Amended Complaint (Doc. #9), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms 27 for Defendant Arpaio. 28 TERMPSREF Case 2:06-cv-00544-MHM-ECV -5Document 12 Filed 08/16/2006 Page 5 of 7 1 (7) Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court within 2 20 days of the date of filing of this Order. The United States Marshal will not provide 3 service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order. 4 (8) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or complete 5 service of the Summons and First Amended Complaint on Defendant within 120 days of the 6 filing of the complaint or within 60 days of the filing of this Order, whichever is later, the 7 action may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 8 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i). 9 10 (9) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the First Amended Complaint, and a copy of this Order for future use. 11 (10) The United States Marshal must notify Defendant of the commencement of this 12 action and request waiver of service of the summons pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the Federal 13 Rules of Civil Procedure. The notice to Defendant must include a copy of this Order. The 14 Marshal must immediately file requests for waivers that were returned as undeliverable and 15 waivers of service of the summons. If a waiver of service of summons is not returned by 16 Defendant within 30 days from the date the request for waiver was sent by the Marshal, the 17 Marshal must: 18 (a) Personally serve copies of the Summons, First Amended Complaint, and 19 this Order upon Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 20 Procedure. 21 (b) Within 10 days after personal service is effected, file the return of service 22 for Defendant, along with evidence of the attempt to secure a waiver of service of the 23 summons and of the costs subsequently incurred in effecting service upon Defendant. 24 The costs of service must be enumerated on the return of service form (USM-285) and 25 must include the costs incurred by the Marshal for photocopying additional copies of 26 the Summons, First Amended Complaint, or this Order and for preparing new process 27 receipt and return forms (USM-285), if required. Costs of service will be taxed against 28 TERMPSREF Case 2:06-cv-00544-MHM-ECV -6Document 12 Filed 08/16/2006 Page 6 of 7 1 the personally served Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) and (5) of the Federal Rules 2 of Civil Procedure unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 3 (11) If Defendant agrees to waive service of the Summons and First Amended 4 Complaint, he must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, not 5 the Plaintiff. 6 (12) Defendant must answer the First Amended Complaint or otherwise respond by 7 appropriate motion within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of 8 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9 10 11 (13) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings. DATED this 15th day of August, 2006. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TERMPSREF Case 2:06-cv-00544-MHM-ECV -7Document 12 Filed 08/16/2006 Page 7 of 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
