Cenicero v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMay 9, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-00877
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

1 MH 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Claudia Cenicero, No. CV-25-00877-PHX-JAT (ASB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, 13 Defendant.

15 Plaintiff Claudia Cenicero, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, has filed a 16 pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1)1 and an Application to 17 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to 18 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 $6.67. The remainder of 23 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 Although Plaintiff did not allege a jurisdictional basis for this lawsuit, the Court construes her Complaint as having been filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because she appears to claim that her conditions of confinement are unconstitutional. 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, fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 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). The 4 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint 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 sues the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. 8 She claims there is “untreated black mold” throughout the Estrella Jail, including in the 9 HVAC system, the shower and toilet facilities, and the common housing units. According 10 to Plaintiff, this condition violates her “right to breath clean air” and is causing her 11 respiratory issues, fatigue, and migraine headaches. 12 IV. Failure to State a Claim 13 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 14 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived her of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 15 (4) caused her damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 16 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 17 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that she suffered a specific injury 18 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and she must allege an affirmative link 19 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 20 72, 377 (1976). 21 The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not a proper defendant because it is a “non- 22 jural entity.” Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Braillard 23 v. Maricopa County, 232 P.3d 1263, 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)). In Arizona, the 24 responsibility of operating jails and caring for prisoners is placed by law upon the sheriff. 25 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 11-441(A)(5), 31-101. A sheriff’s office is simply an administrative 26 creation of the county sheriff to allow him to carry out his statutory duties and is not a 27 “person” amenable to suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, the Court will 28 dismiss Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and the Complaint. 1 V. Leave to Amend 2 Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first amended complaint to cure the 3 deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form 4 to use for filing a first amended complaint.

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

Related

Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
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)
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)
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)
Myers v. United States
17 F.3d 890 (Sixth Circuit, 1994)
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)
Cenicero v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cenicero-v-maricopa-county-sheriffs-office-azd-2025.