Ayarzagoitia v. CoreCivic Corporation

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided April 20, 2023·No. 2:23-cv-00244·Unknown

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 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, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff Damian Ayarzagoitia, who is confined in the Saguaro 16 Correctional Center (SCC) in Eloy, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant 17 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and a Motion for 18 Inclusion of Exhibits as Evidence. In a February 16, 2023 Order, the Court denied the 19 Motion, granted the Application to Proceed, and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff 20 had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint 21 that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 22 On March 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8). The Court 23 will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 24 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 25 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 26 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 27 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 28 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 1 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 2 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 3 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 4 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 5 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 6 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 7 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 8 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 9 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 10 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 11 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 12 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 13 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 14 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 15 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 16 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 17 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 18 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 19 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 20 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 21 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 22 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 23 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 24 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 25 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 26 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 27 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 28 to amend. 1 II. First Amended Complaint 2 In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues CoreCivic Corporation 3 (“CoreCivic”) and Correctional Counselor Gerard Baker. Plaintiff asserts claims of 4 excessive force and denial of basic necessities. He seeks monetary and injunctive relief, 5 as well as his costs and fees for this case. 6 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges the following: 7 On October 21, 2022, Defendant Baker came to Plaintiff’s cell to serve him with a 8 disciplinary report. Defendant Baker opened the food trap to give the report to Plaintiff, 9 and Plaintiff “stuck [his] arms out to prevent [the trap] from being closed.” Plaintiff tried 10 to “grab the papers out of [Baker’s] hands” and told Baker that he would not “cooperate 11 with the process” or sign the report, and that if Baker opened the food trap, Plaintiff would 12 spit on him. Instead of “heeding [Plaintiff’s] warnings,” Defendant Baker opened the food 13 trap. Defendant Baker released the strap securing his mace but did not draw the can. 14 Defendant Baker ordered Plaintiff to remove his arms, and when Plaintiff adjusted his arms 15 to “withdraw” them and walk away from the door, Baker removed the can of mace. 16 Plaintiff quickly stood up and moved to the center of the cell, with his back to the door. As 17 he did so, he felt a burst of spray hit him in the back. The spray lasted about six seconds. 18 Plaintiff turned around to ask Defendant Baker why he had sprayed Plaintiff, at which point 19 Baker sprayed Plaintiff a second time with a three-second burst that hit Plaintiff in the face. 20 Defendant Baker slammed shut the food trap and reported that he had deployed his mace. 21 Shortly after the incident, Plaintiff asked Defendant Baker why he had sprayed 22 Plaintiff. Baker responded that he “heard a sound like someone was spitting” and assumed 23 it was Plaintiff spitting on him because Plaintiff had threatened to spit on him. According 24 to Plaintiff, he did not “follow through with [his] threat” to spit on Defendant Baker. 25 Regional Director Todd Thomas subsequently informed Plaintiff that Defendant Baker’s 26 use of the mace was “premature.” 27 Plaintiff was not allowed to “fully and completely decontaminate [his] body,” and 28 the staff members tasked with supervising the decontamination policy told Plaintiff that 1 “their policy only permitted decontamination of the face.” Plaintiff states he suffered no 2 physical injury, but he suffered burning all over his body until he was able to take a shower 3 on October 24, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that even after he showered, he “felt burning for 4 about a week after the incident.” 5 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges the following: 6 Plaintiff was ordered to clean his cell and keep it clean, but staff would not provide 7 any cleaning supplies, except for a chemical bottle. The restrictive housing unit at SCC 8 does not provide proper cleaning supplies for prisoners to clean their cells. Prisoners are 9 not allowed rags, “handbrooms,” toilet brushes, or dustpans; only a chemical bottle is 10 provided. The Chief of Unit Management told Plaintiff that he could use an old t-shirt to 11 clean his cell. Officer Aguirre-Rubio told Plaintiff to use an old newspaper or tear up a t- 12 shirt to use to clean.

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

Ayarzagoitia v. CoreCivic Corporation, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Ayarzagoitia v. CoreCivic Corporation (Ayarzagoitia v. CoreCivic Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Buckner v. Toro
116 F.3d 450 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Hudson v. McMillian
503 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1992)
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)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Laurie Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc.
698 F.3d 1128 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)