Ceballos v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 27, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-03518
StatusUnknown

This text of Ceballos v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (Ceballos v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office) 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
Ceballos v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Opinion

1 MDR 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Veronika Ceballos, No. CV-24-03518-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Self-represented Plaintiff Veronika Ceballos, who is confined in a Maricopa County 16 Jail, filed a civil rights Complaint1 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma 17 Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed and will dismiss the 18 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 assess an initial partial filing fee of $35.87. 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

26 1 Plaintiff alleges the Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to “Estrella 27 Jail.” This is not a jurisdictional basis. For purposes of this Order, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s claim as filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action 28 against persons acting under color of state law who have violated rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and federal law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F.3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995). 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 2 government 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, fail to state a claim upon which 8 relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 9 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 her one-count Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants the Maricopa County 10 Sheriff’s Office, the Estrella Jail, and Correctional Health Services. She seeks monetary 11 damages. 12 Plaintiff alleges the Estrella Jail was condemned in 1996 and there is mold in the 13 entire Jail, including her cell. She contends they “just painted over it with mold.” Plaintiff 14 asserts there is mold in the toilets, mold spots on her mattress, mold on her desk, and mold 15 in the pipes for her drinking water. She claims she is constantly sick, has developed a 16 “hoarse cough,” and has mucus, memory loss, dizziness, confusion, shortness of breath, 17 and blackouts. Plaintiff alleges the conditions have affected her mental, physical, and 18 emotional health. 19 IV. Failure to State a Claim 20 Although self-represented pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 21 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of 22 action. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal 23 interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim 24 that were not initially pled. Id. 25 A. Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office 26 The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not a proper defendant because it is a “non- 27 jural entity.” Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Braillard 28 v. Maricopa County, 232 P.3d 1263, 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)). In Arizona, the 1 responsibility of operating jails and caring for prisoners is placed by law upon the sheriff. 2 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 11-441(A)(5), 31-101. A sheriff’s office is simply an administrative 3 creation of the county sheriff to allow him to carry out his statutory duties and is not a 4 “person” amenable to suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Related

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)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Braillard v. Maricopa County
232 P.3d 1263 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2010)
Manuel Ortega Melendres v. Joseph Arpaio
784 F.3d 1254 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Hearns v. Terhune
413 F.3d 1036 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Sadoski v. Mosley
435 F.3d 1076 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
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)
Buckley v. City of Redding
66 F.3d 188 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ceballos v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ceballos-v-maricopa-county-sheriffs-office-azd-2025.