Castro v. Skinner

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedOctober 2, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-01257
StatusUnknown

This text of Castro v. Skinner (Castro v. Skinner) 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
Castro v. Skinner, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 KM 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Jacob Luis Castro, No. CV-24-01257-PHX-JAT (MTM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Russell Skinner, 13 Defendant.

15 Self-represented Plaintiff Jacob Luis Castro, who is confined in a Maricopa County 16 Jail, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an 17 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint 18 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 assess an initial partial filing fee of $26.00. The remainder 23 of 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 . . . . 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 [self-represented litigant’s] filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 25 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a self-represented prisoner] 26 ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. 27 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 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 self-represented litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before 3 dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 4 banc). The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because 5 it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 In his two-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Maricopa County Sheriff Russell Skinner 8 and seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. 9 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges invasions of his privacy. He claims the facility has 10 installed cameras that face into cells and shower areas, allowing inmates to be observed 11 while they are using the restroom or taking a shower. 12 In Count Two, Plaintiff claims inmates are deprived of “daily calories.” He claims 13 inmates receive two meals per day and are only allowed out of their cells for four hours per 14 day. According to Plaintiff, “this facility used to give [inmates] 8 hour[s of] dayroom 15 access every day.” He claims “they” told inmates that “they are short staff[ed], that’s why 16 they are only giving use four hour[s of] dayroom.” 17 IV. Failure to State a Claim 18 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a 19 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 20 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 21 371-72, 377 (1976). There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and therefore, 22 a defendant’s position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s 23 constitutional rights does not impose liability. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 24 (1978); Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 1992); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 25 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and 26 § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the 27 official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. 28 . . . . 1 Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant Skinner personally participated in a 2 deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, was aware of a deprivation and failed to act, 3 or formed policies that resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff has therefore failed to state 4 a claim against Defendant Skinner. 5 V. Leave to Amend 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to 7 state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a 8 first amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will 9 mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff 10 fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the amended complaint and 11 dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff.

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)
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)
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)
American Casualty Co. v. Baker
22 F.3d 880 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Alvarez-Machain v. United States
107 F.3d 696 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Perpich v. United States Department of Defense
880 F.2d 11 (Eighth Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Castro v. Skinner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castro-v-skinner-azd-2024.