Antone-Stephens v. Skinner

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedSeptember 5, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-01653
StatusUnknown

This text of Antone-Stephens v. Skinner (Antone-Stephens v. Skinner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Antone-Stephens v. Skinner, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 KM 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Angel Marie Antone-Stephens, No. CV-24-01653-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Russell Skinner, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Self-represented Plaintiff Angel Marie Antone-Stephens, who is confined in a 16 Maricopa County Jail, filed a civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed 17 In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed and will 18 dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 19 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 20 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. The fee will be collected 23 monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s trust 24 account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The 25 Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government agency to collect 26 and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 2 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 3 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 5 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 7 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 8 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 9 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 10 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 11 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 12 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 13 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 14 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 15 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 16 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 17 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 18 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 19 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 20 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 21 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 22 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 23 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 24 must “continue to construe [self-represented parties’] filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 25 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a self-represented prisoner] 26 ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. 27 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 28 . . . . 1 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 2 facts, a self-represented litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before 3 dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 4 banc). The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint because it fails to state a claim, with 5 leave to amend because it may possibly be amended to state a claim. 6 III. Complaint 7 In her three-count Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from Defendants 8 Maricopa County Sheriff Russell Skinner, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), 9 the Estrella Jail, and Correctional Health Medical Services. 10 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges her Eighth Amendment rights are violated by a 11 visible black mold infestation in the jail’s toilets, sinks, showers, air vents, and water 12 faucets. She contends the mold is toxic and creates spores that are “extremely toxic if 13 inhaled, touched or in[g]ested.” She asserts that the facility does not have “an adequate 14 health level of health treatment or care and diagnosis of black mold poisoning.” As her 15 injury, Plaintiff alleges her “mental and physical health are affected,” she has “chronic 16 respiratory cough and congestion, chronic fatigue and loss of sleep due to cough and chest 17 pains,” and “breathing issues affecting asthma.” 18 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1997, claiming the “entire 19 MCSO facility ignored the current evidence issues of black mold infestation.” She claims 20 “all buildings in complex have caused inmates physical long term medical conditions 21 because the entire staff ignores necessities of treatment [or] care.” 22 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1997, claiming 23 Defendant MCSO and “appropriate authorities” “have incorrectly used funds as according 24 to civil rights 1997 to fix and remedy conditions which are illegal and unconstitutional.” 25 IV. Failure to State a Claim 26 Although self-represented pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 27 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of 28 action. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal 1 interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim 2 that were not initially pled. Id. 3 A. Defendant Skinner 4 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a 5 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 6 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 7 371-72, 377 (1976). There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and therefore, 8 a defendant’s position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s 9 constitutional rights does not impose liability. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 10 (1978); Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Bell v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell
981 F.2d 1062 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Braillard v. Maricopa County
232 P.3d 1263 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2010)
Manuel Ortega Melendres v. Joseph Arpaio
784 F.3d 1254 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Hearns v. Terhune
413 F.3d 1036 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Sadoski v. Mosley
435 F.3d 1076 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Antone-Stephens v. Skinner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antone-stephens-v-skinner-azd-2024.