Carter v. Penzone

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 18, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-02545
StatusUnknown

This text of Carter v. Penzone (Carter 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
Carter v. Penzone, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 ASH 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Antanette Carter, No. CV-23-02545-PHX-JAT (MTM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Paul Penzone, 13 Defendant.

14 15 On December 8, 2023, Plaintiff Antanette Carter, who is confined in a Maricopa 16 County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint1 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed 17 In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 18 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 19 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 22 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 23 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 25 26 1 Although Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), she is only suing a state actor. 27 Therefore, the Court will construe her claim as having been asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Actions under § 1983 and 28 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 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 2 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 3 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 4 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 5 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 6 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 7 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 8 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 9 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 10 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 11 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 12 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 13 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 14 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 15 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 16 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 17 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 18 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 19 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 20 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 21 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 22 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 23 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 24 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 25 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 26 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 27 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 28 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 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 her one-count Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from Defendant Paul 8 Penzone. She contends she has been exposed to black mold and asbestos, which caused 9 her migraine headaches. 10 IV. Failure to State a Claim 11 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 12 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 13 v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a 14 liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the 15 claim that were not initially pled. Id. 16 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a 17 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 18 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 19 371-72, 377 (1976). “A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that 20 an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of [her] civil rights.” Barren v. 21 Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). 22 A pretrial detainee has a right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 23 Amendment to be free from punishment prior to an adjudication of guilt. Bell v. Wolfish, 24 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). “Pretrial detainees are entitled to ‘adequate food, clothing, 25 shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.’” Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 26 107 F.3d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 27 1982)).

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)
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)
United States v. Leonard A. Pelullo
14 F.3d 881 (Third Circuit, 1994)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Carter v. Penzone, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-penzone-azd-2024.