Cochran 236701 v. Ryan

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided November 21, 2019·No. 2:19-cv-03238·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO SC 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Howard Cochran, No. CV 19-03238-PHX-MTL (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Charles L. Ryan, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Howard Cochran, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex- 16 Eyman in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 7). The Court 18 granted the Application to Proceed but dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend 19 because it failed to state a claim (Doc. 9). Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint 20 (Doc. 11). The Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 21 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 22 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 23 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 24 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 25 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 26 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 27 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 28 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 1 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 2 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 3 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 4 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 5 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 6 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 7 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 8 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 9 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 10 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 11 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 12 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 13 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 14 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 15 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 16 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 17 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 18 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 19 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 20 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 21 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 22 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 23 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 24 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 25 to amend. 26 II. First Complaint 27 In his one-count Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a claim for violation of his Eighth 28 Amendment rights. Plaintiff sues only the former director of the Arizona Department of 1 Corrections (ADC), Charles L. Ryan.1 Plaintiff seeks compensatory relief. 2 Plaintiff alleges that from October 16, 2018 until May 9, 2019, he was housed in the 3 “M.D.U.”2 Plaintiff alleges that his cell was infested with roaches, he was housed in a two- 4 person cell with two other prisoners, and he had to sleep on the floor next to the toilet and 5 smell his cellmates as they used the toilet. Plaintiff further alleges that disinfectant or 6 cleaning supplies were not passed around during that period. In addition, he alleges that 7 he was not able to send his clothing out to be washed. Plaintiff asserts that “Defendant was 8 made aware of this but Defendant still acted with deliberate indifference about Plaintiff[’s] 9 in human[e] living condition[.]” As his injury, Plaintiff alleges he suffered stress, shame, 10 and degradation. 11 III. Failure to State a Claim 12 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 13 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 14 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 15 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 16 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury 17 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link 18 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 19 72, 377 (1976). 20 To state a claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement, a plaintiff must 21 allege an objectively “sufficiently serious” deprivation that results in the denial of “the 22 minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 23 (1994); Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 1994); see Estate of Ford v. Ramirez- 24 Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2002). That is, a plaintiff must allege facts 25 supporting that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of harm.

26 1 On September 13, 2019, Charles Ryan stepped down as Director of the Arizona 27 Department of Corrections. The Acting Director is Joseph Profiri. 28 2 Plaintiff apparently refers to the Morey Detention Unit of the Lewis Complex in Buckeye, Arizona. 1 Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. “The circumstances, nature, and duration of a deprivation of [] 2 necessities must be considered in determining whether a constitutional violation has 3 occurred.” Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Johnson v. 4 Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000)). Further, whether a condition of confinement 5 rises to the level of a constitutional violation may depend, in part, on the duration of an 6 inmate’s exposure to that condition. Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir. 1996) 7 (citing Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686-87 (1978)).

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

Cochran 236701 v. Ryan, (D. Ariz. 2019).

Cochran 236701 v. Ryan (Cochran 236701 v. Ryan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

The Amiable Isabella
19 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1821)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Hutto v. Finney
437 U.S. 678 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Rhodes v. Chapman
452 U.S. 337 (Supreme Court, 1981)
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)
Estate of Jeffrey Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer
301 F.3d 1043 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Hearns v. Terhune
413 F.3d 1036 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Allen v. Sakai
48 F.3d 1082 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)