Brown 235551 v. Maricopa, County of

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedNovember 25, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-02282
StatusUnknown

This text of Brown 235551 v. Maricopa, County of (Brown 235551 v. Maricopa, County of) 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
Brown 235551 v. Maricopa, County of, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 MDR 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Jerry Douglas Harris Brown, Jr., No. CV-24-02282-PHX-JAT (MTM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Maricopa County, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Self-represented Plaintiff Jerry Douglas Harris Brown, Jr., who is confined in a 16 Maricopa County Jail, filed a civil rights Complaint1 (Doc. 1) and an Application to 17 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed and 18 will 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. Id. The statutory filing 23 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 24 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 25

26 1 Plaintiff alleges the Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six 27 Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Court will construe Plaintiff’s claim as having been asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 28 Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Actions under § 1983 and those under Bivens are identical save for the replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a federal actor under Bivens.” (quoting Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991))). 1 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 2 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 3 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 4 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 5 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 7 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 8 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 9 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 10 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 11 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 12 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 13 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 14 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 15 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 16 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 17 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 18 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 19 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 21 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 22 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 23 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 24 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 25 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 26 must “continue to construe [self-represented litigant’s] filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 27 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a self-represented prisoner] 28 1 ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. 2 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 3 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 4 facts, a self-represented litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before 5 dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 6 banc). The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave 7 to amend because it may possibly be amended to state a claim. 8 III. Complaint 9 In his Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants Maricopa County, Maricopa 10 County Sheriff Russell Skinner, Acting Jail Commander Patrick King, and Jail 11 Officials/Detention Officers Jane/John Doe 1-15. Plaintiff alleges he was subjected to 12 retaliation, in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He seeks 13 monetary damages. 14 Plaintiff makes the following allegations. Plaintiff was in his cell on July 9, 2024, 15 waiting for his door to be opened so he could receive his seizure medication, but the door 16 never opened. He pressed his emergency button, but there was no response from the tower 17 officer. Plaintiff continued to wait and, when an officer came into the housing unit, he 18 informed the officer “of [his] situation” and asked the officer to have the tower officer reset 19 the emergency button. The emergency button was reset. 20 Plaintiff notified another officer that he had not received his medication, and the 21 officer said that he would try to get the nurse dispensing medication to return. The officer 22 returned and told Plaintiff that the tower officer claimed Plaintiff’s door had been opened 23 and Plaintiff had refused his medication. Plaintiff claims this is not true and he would 24 never refuse the seizure medication because it “saves [his] life.”2 25 Plaintiff filed a complaint which proceeded to the “External Referee Level.” 26 Plaintiff contends the complaint was “closed” by two captains “out of retaliation for

27 2 Plaintiff states he had a seizure at the jail in April, received only Tylenol for his 28 pain, was not taken to the hospital until July 29, and is awaiting an eye surgery to restore his vision following the seizure. 1 [Plaintiff] not withdrawing [an excessive force] complaint.” He also alleges he was moved 2 to a maximum custody facility on August 9, 2024, for ten days “out of retaliation,” but was 3 told “it was not out of retaliation[,] it was a classification error.” 4 IV. Failure to State a Claim 5 Although self-represented pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 6 U.S.

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)
Carol Van Strum Paul E. Merrell v. John C. Lawn
940 F.2d 406 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)
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)
Rhodes v. Robinson
408 F.3d 559 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brown 235551 v. Maricopa, County of, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-235551-v-maricopa-county-of-azd-2024.