Ayarzagoitia v. CoreCivic Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedFebruary 16, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-00244
StatusUnknown

This text of Ayarzagoitia v. CoreCivic Corporation (Ayarzagoitia v. CoreCivic Corporation) 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
Ayarzagoitia v. CoreCivic Corporation, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Opinion

1 WO JL 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Damian Ayarzagoitia, No. CV 23-00244-PHX-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 CoreCivic Corporation, 13 Defendant.

15 Plaintiff Damian Ayarzagoitia, who is confined in the Saguaro Correctional Center 16 (SCC) in Eloy, Arizona, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983 (Doc. 1), an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2), and a Motion for 18 Inclusion of Exhibits as Evidence (Doc. 4). The Court will grant the Application to 19 Proceed, deny the Motion, and dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 20 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 21 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 24 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 25 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 27 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 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 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 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 1 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 2 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 3 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 4 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 5 III. Complaint 6 In his three-count Complaint, Plaintiff names CoreCivic Corporation (“CoreCivic”) 7 as the sole Defendant. Plaintiff asserts claims of excessive force, denial of access to the 8 courts, and denial of basic necessities. He seeks monetary and injunctive relief, as well as 9 his costs and fees for this case. 10 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges the following: 11 On October 21, 2022, Correctional Counselor Baker came to Plaintiff’s cell to serve 12 him with a disciplinary report. Baker opened the food trap to give the report to Plaintiff, 13 and Plaintiff “stuck [his] arms out to prevent [the trap] from being closed.” Plaintiff tried 14 to “grab the papers out of [Baker’s] hands” and told Baker that he would not “cooperate 15 with the process” or sign the report. Baker “undid the strap on his can [of mace]” but did 16 not draw it out. Plaintiff adjusted his arms to “withdraw” them and walk away from the 17 door. Baker removed the can of mace and sprayed Plaintiff with the mace. Plaintiff quickly 18 stood up, moved away from the door, and put his back to the door. As he did so, he felt a 19 burst of spray hit him in the back. After Baker stopped spraying, Plaintiff turned around 20 to ask Baker why he had sprayed Plaintiff, at which point Baker sprayed Plaintiff a second 21 time with a short burst that hit Plaintiff in the face. Baker slammed shut the food trap and 22 reported that he had deployed his spray. Shortly after the incident, Plaintiff asked Baker 23 why he had sprayed Plaintiff. Baker responded that he “heard a sound like someone was 24 spitting” and assumed it was Plaintiff spitting on him. Plaintiff states he did not suffer any 25 physical injury, but he had “constant burning all over [his] body due to not being allowed 26 to properly and completely decontaminate.” 27 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges the following: 28 On September 2, 2022, Plaintiff requested a certified trust account statement 1 because he had requested copies of documents from the Ada County Court Clerk,1 and the 2 Clerk had requested proof that Plaintiff was indigent. The inmate accounts clerk asked to 3 see the letter Plaintiff had received from the Ada County Court. Although he was not 4 required to do so because it was a legal matter, Plaintiff sent the letter to the inmate 5 accounts clerk. Plaintiff received a response stating that Idaho inmate accounts had 6 reported that Plaintiff was not indigent and denied his request. Plaintiff submitted a 7 grievance, which was denied. Plaintiff then submitted an appeal and apparently received 8 a response that stated that he could “only make the request when it is attached to an In 9 Forma Pauperis application.” When Plaintiff made the initial request on September 2, 10 2022, he was indigent.

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

Related

Buckner v. Toro
116 F.3d 450 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Hudson v. McMillian
503 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Lewis v. Casey
518 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court, 1996)
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)
Laurie Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc.
698 F.3d 1128 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ayarzagoitia v. CoreCivic Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ayarzagoitia-v-corecivic-corporation-azd-2023.