Castillo 191870 v. Unknown Party

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided May 4, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-00527·Unknown

Opinion

1 wo MDR 2 3 4 5 8 9 Emmanuel L. Castillo, No. CV 21-00527-PHX-JAT (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Morey Unit Warden John/Jane Doe, et 13 al., Defendants. 14 15 16 On March 25, 2021, Plaintiff Emmanuel L. Castillo, who is confined in the Arizona 17 State Prison Complex (ASPC)-Eyman in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights 18 Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). In an April 5, 2021 Order, the Court 19 gave Plaintiff thirty days to either pay the administrative and filing fees or file a complete 20 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 21 On April 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for: Protection and or TRO, Temporary 22 Restraining Order” and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an April 9, 2021 23 Order, the Court denied the Motion and the deficient Application to Proceed and gave 24 Plaintiff thirty days to pay the filing and administrative fees or file a complete Application 25 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 26 On April 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a second Application to Proceed In Forma 27 Pauperis (Doc. 8). The Court will grant the second Application to Proceed and will dismiss 28 the Complaint with leave to amend. 1 I. Second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 2 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $20.41. The remainder 5 of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 6 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 7 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 8 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 9 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 10 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 11 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 12 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 13 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 14 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 15 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 16 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 17 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 18 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 19 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 20 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 21 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 22 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 23 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 24 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 25 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 26 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 27 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 28 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 1 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 2 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 3 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 4 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 5 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 6 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 7 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 8 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 9 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 10 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 11 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 12 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 13 III. Complaint 14 In his nine-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues the following John/Jane Doe Defendants 15 in their individual and official capacities: Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) 16 Regional Director; ASPC-Lewis Complex Warden and Deputy Warden; and Morey Unit 17 Warden, Deputy Warden, Associate Deputy Warden, Major, Chief of Security, and 18 Correctional Officer IV. In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, a 19 “new certification for offic[i]als and management,” and for “[t]he training for safety [to] 20 be changed.” 21 Plaintiff’s nine counts are identical. In each, he alleges he was subjected to a failure 22 to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He claims he was assaulted on April 26, 23 2019, and, after he was back in his cell, behind a locked door, individuals were able to 24 “manipulate the lock,” open his cell door, and assault him again. 25 Plaintiff contends ADC Department Order (DO) 703 requires that security devices 26 are regularly inspected to ensure they remain in good working condition and that 27 supervisory and other management personnel conduct regular inspections and tours. 28 Plaintiff alleges it is “public record” that “all the Defendants knew of the locks and their 1 malfunction.” He claims there was a “systematic cover up” that shows “deliberate 2 indifference.” 3 IV. Failure to State a Claim 4 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 5 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 6 v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal interpretation of a 7 civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 8 pled. Id. 9 A. Individual Capacity Claims 10 Plaintiff has simply made vague and conclusory allegations against a group of 11 Defendants, without any factual specificity as to what any particular Defendant did or 12 failed to do. This is insufficient. See Marcilis v. Twp. of Redford, 693 F.3d 589, 596 (6th 13 Cir. 2012) (upholding dismissal of Bivens complaint that referred to all defendants 14 “generally and categorically” because the plaintiff had failed to “‘allege, with particularity, 15 facts that demonstrate what each defendant did to violate the asserted constitut

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

Castillo 191870 v. Unknown Party, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Castillo 191870 v. Unknown Party (Castillo 191870 v. Unknown Party) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Hooe Et Al.
7 U.S. 73 (Supreme Court, 1805)
Ex Parte Young
209 U.S. 123 (Supreme Court, 1908)
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)
Kentucky v. Graham
473 U.S. 159 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Davidson v. Cannon
474 U.S. 344 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
491 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Hafer v. Melo
502 U.S. 21 (Supreme Court, 1991)
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)
Los Angeles County v. Humphries
131 S. Ct. 447 (Supreme Court, 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)
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Brown
674 F.3d 1128 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Anthony Bruce Cannon
15 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)