Brandom v. Penzone

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 4, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-02061
StatusUnknown

This text of Brandom v. Penzone (Brandom v. Penzone) 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
Brandom v. Penzone, (D. Ariz. 2022).

Opinion

1 WO SC 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Kristi Anne Brandom, No. CV 21-02061-PHX-JAT (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Paul Penzone, 13 Defendant.

14 15 On December 6, 2021, Plaintiff Kristi Anne Brandom, who is confined in a 16 Maricopa County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1) and an Application to 17 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to 18 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 assess an initial partial filing fee of $8.00. The remainder of 23 the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 24 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 26 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 27 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 28 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 1 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 3 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 4 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 5 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 6 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 7 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 8 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 9 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 10 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 11 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 12 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 13 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 14 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 15 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 16 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 17 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 18 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 19 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 20 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 21 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 22 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 23 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 24 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 25 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 26 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 27 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 28 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 2 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 3 III. Complaint 4 In her two-count Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from Defendant Paul 5 Penzone. In Count I, she alleges Defendant knowingly housed her in “unliv[]able” 6 conditions at the Estrella Jail, which resulted in her suffering difficulty breathing, itchy 7 skin, sore throat, itchy eyes, headaches, hair loss, and rashes. In Count II, she alleges that 8 she was assigned to dormitory style housing that failed to socially distance her at least six 9 feet from other detainees, despite knowledge of COVID-19 risks. As a result, she tested 10 positive for COVID-19, she was quarantined, she missed court dates, and she suffered flu- 11 like symptoms, body aches, sore throat, joint problems, coughing, diarrhea, and nausea. 12 IV. Failure to State a Claim 13 To state a valid claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that she suffered a 14 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 15 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 16 371-72, 377 (1976). “A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that 17 an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of [her] civil rights.” Barren v. 18 Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). 19 A pretrial detainee has a right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 20 Amendment to be free from punishment prior to an adjudication of guilt. Bell v. Wolfish, 21 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). “Pretrial detainees are entitled to ‘adequate food, clothing, 22 shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.’” Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 23 107 F.3d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 24 1982)). To state a claim of unconstitutional conditions of confinement against an 25 individual defendant, a pretrial detainee must allege facts that support: 26 (i) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (ii) those conditions put the plaintiff 27 at substantial risk of suffering serious harm; (iii) the defendant did not take 28 reasonable available measures to abate that risk, even though a reasonable official in the circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk involved—making the consequences of the defendant’s conduct obvious; 1 and (iv) by not taking such measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff’s 2 injuries. 3 Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018). 4 Whether the conditions and conduct rise to the level of a constitutional violation is 5 an objective assessment that turns on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. 6 Id.; Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005).

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

Related

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
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)
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)
Hearns v. Terhune
413 F.3d 1036 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
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)
Alvarez-Machain v. United States
107 F.3d 696 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Hoptowit v. Ray
682 F.2d 1237 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brandom v. Penzone, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandom-v-penzone-azd-2022.