Free Order on Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Currently before the Court is Defendants Maricopa County and Sheriff Jo Arpaio's ("Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt.#14). After reviewing Defendants' unopposed Motion the Court issues the following Order. I. Procedural History This civil rights case was removed to this Court on January 5, 2004 from Maricopa County Superior Court. (Dkt.#1). On October 6, 2005 Defendants filed this instant Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt.#14). Plaintiff; however, failed to file to file any response. On May 12, 2006, the Court withdrew the reference to the Magistrate Judge to address the pending motion. II. Factual Background On July 21, 2004, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint. (Dkt.#9). Specifically, Plaintiff asserts the following claims against Defendants: (1) negligent supervision; (2)
Document 19 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) County of Maricopa; Sheriff Joseph) ) Arpaio, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) ) Michael Dekker,

No. CV 04-0006-PHX-MHM ORDER

Case 2:04-cv-00006-MHM-DKD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

negligent hiring; (3) negligent training; (4) violation of his civil rights; (5) deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs and (6) retaliation. Plaintiff's claims appear to derive out of an apparent assault against him by several inmates while imprisoned at the Durango Correctional Facility. On November 21, 2002, Plaintiff Michael Dekker ("Plaintiff") was found unconscious in his prison cell at the Durango facility. (Defendants' Statement of Facts ("SOF") ¶ 6). Plaintiff was transported to Maricopa County Medical Center for medical treatment after he was found. (SOF ¶ 9). According to Plaintiff, he sustained injuries because of an assault by several other inmates at the Durango facility. (SOF ¶ 15). On November 22, 2002, Plaintiff was discharged to Correctional Health Facilities for follow-up care. (SOF ¶ 9). He was subsequently assigned to a medical pod for further supervision. (SOF ¶ 10). On September 12, 2005, Plaintiff failed to appear for a previously scheduled deposition regarding his claims. (SOF ¶ 18). III. Standard A motion for summary judgment may be granted only if the evidence shows "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). To defeat the motion, the non-moving party must show that there are genuine factual issues "that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322. Although a court may not grant a motion for summary judgment simply because the non-moving party does not file opposing material, a court may grant summary judgment when the unopposed moving papers are sufficient on their face and show no issues of material fact exist. See Henry v. Gill Indus., 983 F.2d 950 (9th Cir. 1993). -2Document 19 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 2 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-00006-MHM-DKD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IV.

Analysis A. Maricopa County as a Defendant in this Litigation

Plaintiff names Maricopa County as a Defendant in this matter. However, in Arizona the responsibility of running the jails falls upon the Sheriff, not the county. See A.R.S. § 11441 and A.R.S. § 31-101. In addition, Maricopa County cannot be held liable under a respondeat superior theory. See Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir. 1989). In the instant case, other than Plaintiff's conclusory allegations, Plaintiff provides no independent basis of liability against Defendant Maricopa County. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to generate any issue of material fact with respect to Defendant Maricopa County in this litigation. B. Respondeat Superior Liability Against Sheriff Arpaio

There is no respondeat superior theory under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978). In the instant case, Plaintiff provides no independent basis of liability against Sheriff Arpaio on Plaintiff's civil rights claim. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that Sheriff Arpaio promulgated a policy of deliberate indifference towards the rights of inmates, however, Plaintiff fails to identify any factual allegations in support of such a policy. As such, Plaintiff's claims based upon negligent training, hiring and supervision against Defendant Arpaio fail. C. Plaintiff's Deliberate Indifference Claim

Plaintiff's conclusory allegations also fail to set forth a claim of deliberate indifference at the summary judgment stage. The failure of prison officials to protect inmates from attacks by other inmates may rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation when: (1) the deprivation alleged is "objectively, sufficiently serious" and (2) the prison officials had a "sufficiently culpable state of mind," acting with deliberate indifference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994). To be liable for failing to protect an inmate, a prison official must be aware of sufficient information about a particular danger, which in turn gives rise to an affirmative duty to protect the threatened inmate. Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1986). Based upon the record before the Court there -3Document 19 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 3 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-00006-MHM-DKD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

is no evidence to support a deliberate indifference claim. Rather, the attack appears to be spontaneous without any notice to Sheriff Arpaio or his deputies. In addition, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's medical needs. To establish a claim for a serious medical need, a plaintiff must show that the prison officials responded to the plaintiff's serious medical need with deliberate indifference. In general, deliberate indifference may be shown when prison officials deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison officials provide medical care. Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 393-94 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, the evidence in the record reveals that Plaintiff was provided sufficient medical care. (SOF ¶ 9). Plaintiff offers no evidence to contradict this conclusion. D. Retaliation

To prevail on a claim for retaliation, an inmate must show that: (1) the prison official acted in retaliation for the exercise of a Constitutionally-protected right and that (2) the action "advanced no legitimate penological interest." Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 267 (9th Cir. 1997), cert denied, 534 U.S. 936 (1998). Based upon the record before the Court, there is simply no evidence suggesting that Plaintiff was retaliated against by Sheriff Arpaio or his deputies. In fact, the record reveals that when officials tried to investigate the assault against Plaintiff, he refused to cooperate. (SOF ¶'s 15,16). As such, Plaintiff's retaliation claim fails. /// ///

-4Case 2:04-cv-00006-MHM-DKD Document 19 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt.#14). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment accordingly. DATED this 25th day of August, 2006.

-5Case 2:04-cv-00006-MHM-DKD Document 19 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 5 of 5