Coffey v. Core Civic America

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedDecember 4, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-01899
StatusUnknown

This text of Coffey v. Core Civic America (Coffey v. Core Civic America) 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
Coffey v. Core Civic America, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 MDR 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Dylan Shane Coffey, No. CV 20-01899-PHX-DGC (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 CoreCivic America, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On September 28, 2020, Plaintiff Dylan Shane Coffey, who is confined in 16 CoreCivic’s Red Rock Correctional Center in Eloy, Arizona, filed a pro se Complaint for 17 Defamation of Character. In an October 7, 2020 Order, the Court gave Plaintiff thirty days 18 to either pay the filing and administrative fees or file an Application to Proceed In Forma 19 Pauperis. 20 On October 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 21 In an October 27, 2020 Order, the Court granted the Application and dismissed the 22 Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to file on a court-approved form. The Court gave 23 Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint using the court-approved form. 24 On November 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8).1 The 25 Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 26

27 1 Plaintiff alleges the jurisdictional basis for this case is “Tort of Defamation.” This 28 is not a jurisdictional basis. For purposes of this Order, the Court will construe his claims as filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action against persons acting under color of state law who have violated rights guaranteed by the United States 1 I. 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 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 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 First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 5 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 6 to amend. 7 II. First Amended Complaint 8 In his one-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and 9 injunctive relief from Defendants Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC), CoreCivic 10 America, and Assistant Deputy Warden/Contract Monitor J. Garrison. 11 Plaintiff alleges his rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments and 12 Article IV of the United States Constitution were violated. He contends he received a 13 September 4, 2019 memorandum from Defendant ADC stating that he had been placed on 14 non-visitation status pending the resolution of a disciplinary charge for possession of drugs 15 or narcotics. On September 30, 2019, he received a memorandum stating that full visitation 16 status had been restored because the disciplinary violation had been dismissed at the time 17 of his hearing. 18 Plaintiff contends Defendant CoreCivic is responsible for not following ADC 19 protocol and “inspecting a cell prior to being moved into such cell and allowing [Plaintiff] 20 to watch and sign off they inspected the cell which the violation arose from.” Plaintiff 21 claims Defendant Garrison “should have prevented a guilty charge from being seen 22 online.” Plaintiff also asserts Defendant ADC “should have never allowed false, 23 defamation of character charges to be put on their website without [Plaintiff’s] knowledge 24 or consent [and] made available to the public.” He claims he suffered emotional distress, 25 embarrassment, damage to his reputation, and defamation of character, “all for allowing 26 friends/family and the public to see a guilty charge or a charge online that should have 27 never been published online for the fact that it was not true.” 28 . . . . 1 III. Failure to State a Claim 2 A. Defendant Arizona Department of Corrections 3 The Arizona Department of Corrections is not a proper Defendant. Under the 4 Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a state or state agency may 5 not be sued in federal court without its consent. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. 6 Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 7 Furthermore, “a state is not a ‘person’ for purposes of section 1983. Likewise ‘arms of the 8 State’ such as the Arizona Department of Corrections are not ‘persons’ under section 9 1983.” Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1327 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation 10 omitted). Therefore, the Court will dismiss Defendant Arizona Department of Corrections. 11 B. Defendant CoreCivic 12 To state a claim under § 1983 against a private entity performing a traditional public 13 function, such as housing prisoners, a plaintiff must allege facts to support that his 14 constitutional rights were violated as a result of a policy, decision, or custom promulgated 15 or endorsed by the private entity.

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

Related

Buckner v. Toro
116 F.3d 450 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
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)
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1984)
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)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Laurie Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc.
698 F.3d 1128 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Coffey v. Core Civic America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coffey-v-core-civic-america-azd-2020.