Coffey v. Core Civic America

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided December 4, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-01899·Unknown

Opinion

1 MDR 2 WO 3 4 5 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)).

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

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

Coffey v. Core Civic America (Coffey v. Core Civic America) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)