Caraffa v. CHS

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedFebruary 10, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-00256
StatusUnknown

This text of Caraffa v. CHS (Caraffa v. CHS) 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
Caraffa v. CHS, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Alfred E. Caraffa, No. CV 20-00256-PHX-MTL (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 CHS, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff Alfred E. Caraffa, who is confined in a Maricopa 16 County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and 17 an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the 18 Application to Proceed and 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 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 26 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 27 . . . . 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 . . . . 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). 4 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed 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 his four-count Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from Defendants 8 Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone, 9 “CHS,” and MCSO Employee B1300. 10 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges he has been denied medical services. He contends 11 he saw a doctor on January 2, 2020, about receiving female hormone treatment. Plaintiff 12 alleges the doctor told him that he would need to have blood work done and that the doctor 13 would see him in two weeks. Plaintiff asserts that although he has had the blood work 14 done, Defendant CHS’s staff is now telling him it will take 2-3 months to see the doctor. 15 Plaintiff asserts this is depriving him of “treatment to choose [his] own sexual iden[t]ity” 16 and his right to “chose to be who [he is].” 17 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges he is being subjected to “torment and mental 18 torture” in violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual 19 punishment. He contends that because he filed a civil action against a police department 20 and another civil action against a prison medical company, “staff[,] as well as Sheriff’s 21 Deputies in their employment of their daily work habits” have used “word games and try 22 to torment [Plaintiff]” with various comments. 23 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges he is being subjected to retaliation in violation of 24 the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff relates 25 a lengthy tale about how: a Los Angeles County prosecutor conspired to kidnap him; he 26 overheard detainees in a holding cell tell a story about a plan to kidnap him; he was held 27 in a county jail after accepting a plea agreement; and he was ultimately released late 28 because it took sixteen days to process his paperwork. He claims this led to a lawsuit 1 against the Los Angeles Sheriff, but when he tried to file the lawsuit, Defendant B1300 2 returned the complaint to Plaintiff, explaining that Inmate Legal Services would file a 3 lawsuit “for conditions of confinement in Maricopa County Jail, not for conditions of 4 confinement when [Plaintiff was] in a Los Angeles Jail.” 5 In Count Four, Plaintiff alleges he was denied access to the federal court, in 6 violation of his right to due process. First, he contends Defendant B1300 prevented him 7 from filing the civil action described in Count Three because “the federal courthouse was 8 outside Maricopa County.” Second, he asserts Defendant B1300 returned a 59-page first 9 amended complaint Plaintiff was attempting to file in Caraffa v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s 10 Department, CV 20-00013-PHX-MTL (ESW) (D. Ariz.), because Defendant B1300 11 wanted clarification as to whether Plaintiff’s “evidence to support [the] amended 12 complaint” were attachments or separate filings and wanted Plaintiff to list the addresses 13 of two non-parties in that lawsuit.

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

Related

Lessee of Spratt v. Spratt
26 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court, 1828)
Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
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)
Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1989)
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)
Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell
981 F.2d 1062 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Silva v. Di Vittorio
658 F.3d 1090 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Robert Simmons v. Ronald Pryor and City of Evanston
9 F.3d 555 (Seventh Circuit, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Caraffa v. CHS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caraffa-v-chs-azd-2020.