Chapman v. Penzone

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedAugust 16, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-01214
StatusUnknown

This text of Chapman v. Penzone (Chapman 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
Chapman v. Penzone, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Opinion

1 MDR 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Kylene Kaye Chapman, No. CV-23-01214-PHX-JAT (ASB) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Paul Penzone, 13 Defendant.

15 Pro se Plaintiff Kylene Kaye Chapman, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, 16 filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to 17 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed and 18 will dismiss the 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 not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 23 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 24 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 26 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 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). 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 8 Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone. Plaintiff alleges she has been denied her Eighth 9 Amendment rights because of “inhumane & insufficient housing due to lack of proper care 10 of the housing facility.” She claims there is “visible black mold” in the showers and air 11 vents and “in & around sinks.” Plaintiff contends she has suffered “emotional & mental 12 injury,” severe headaches, and upper respiratory infections. 13 IV. Failure to State a Claim 14 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 15 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 16 v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal interpretation of a 17 civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 18 pled. Id. 19 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a 20 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 21 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 22 371-72, 377 (1976). There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and therefore, 23 a defendant’s position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s 24 constitutional rights does not impose liability. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 25 (1978); Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 1992); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 26 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, 27 a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own 28 individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. 1 Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant Penzone 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. Indeed, Plaintiff has made no 4 allegations at all against Defendant Penzone. Thus, the Court will dismiss without 5 prejudice Defendant Penzone. 6 V. Leave to Amend 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to 8 state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a 9 first amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will 10 mail Plaintiff a court-approved form 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)
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)
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)
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)
Alvarez-Machain v. United States
107 F.3d 696 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Hoptowit v. Ray
682 F.2d 1237 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Chapman v. Penzone, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-v-penzone-azd-2023.