Austin v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 14, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-02771
StatusUnknown

This text of Austin v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (Austin v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office) 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
Austin v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Opinion

1 MH 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Geraldine Austin, No. CV-24-02771-PHX-JAT (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Geraldine Austin, who is confined in Maricopa County’s Estrella Jail, has 16 filed a pro se civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1)1 and an Application to Proceed In Forma 17 Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 18 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 19 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 22 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 23 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 25 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 26 . . . . 27 28 1 Although Plaintiff did not identify a basis for jurisdiction, she is suing state actors for a purported violation of her federal constitutional rights. Therefore, the Court will construe her claim as having been asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 25 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 26 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 27 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 pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 3 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 4 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because it may 5 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 In her one-count Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that her safety is being threatened by 8 conditions at the Estrella Jail. Plaintiff is suing the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, 9 Correctional Health Services, the Estrella Jail, and Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Jails 10 for money damages. 11 Plaintiff alleges that there is mold in the water pipes and toilet bowls and “all over” 12 the walls at the Estrella Jail. According to Plaintiff, the “gross out” mold where she eats, 13 drinks, and sleeps is causing detainees to get sick and is making her worried for her health. 14 Plaintiff claims that she is suffering as a result of the mold and that this condition has 15 “[a]ffected [her] medical care.” 16 IV. Failure to State a Claim 17 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 18 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived her of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 19 (4) caused her damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 20 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 21 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that she suffered a specific injury 22 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and she must allege an affirmative link 23 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 24 72, 377 (1976). 25 A. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office 26 The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not a proper defendant because it is a “non- 27 jural entity.” Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Braillard 28 v. Maricopa County, 232 P.3d 1263, 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)). In Arizona, the 1 responsibility of operating jails and caring for prisoners is placed by law upon the sheriff. 2 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 11-441(A)(5), 31-101. A sheriff’s office is simply an administrative 3 creation of the county sheriff to allow him to carry out his statutory duties and is not a 4 “person” amenable to suit pursuant to § 1983. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss 5 Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. 6 B. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Jails, Estrella Jail, and Correctional Health Services 7 8 Section 1983, 42 U.S.C., imposes liability on any “person” who violates an 9 individual’s federal rights while acting under color of state law.

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

Related

Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Bell v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
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)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (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)
Jonathon Castro v. County of Los Angeles
833 F.3d 1060 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Mary Gordon v. County of Orange
888 F.3d 1118 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)
American Casualty Co. v. Baker
22 F.3d 880 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Austin v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-maricopa-county-sheriffs-office-azd-2025.