Conner 304527 v. Taylor

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 10, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-02525
StatusUnknown

This text of Conner 304527 v. Taylor (Conner 304527 v. Taylor) 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
Conner 304527 v. Taylor, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Dayshaun Darion Conner, No. CV-23-02525-PHX-JAT (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 K. Taylor, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Dayshaun Darion Conner, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 16 Complex-Eyman, has 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. 2). The Court will 18 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 assess an initial partial filing fee of $44.05. The remainder 23 of 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 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 28 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 1 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 3 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 4 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 5 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 6 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 7 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 8 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 9 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 10 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 11 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 12 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 13 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 14 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 15 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 16 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 17 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 18 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 19 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 20 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 21 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 22 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 23 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 24 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 25 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 26 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 27 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 28 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 2 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 3 III. Complaint 4 In his three-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Sergeant K. Taylor, Corporal Carter, 5 and an Unknown Male Correctional Officer II. Plaintiff asserts excessive force claims, 6 purportedly under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He seeks monetary 7 damages,1 and his costs and fees for this case. 8 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges the following: 9 On October 12, 2023, during a medical Incident Command System (ICS), Plaintiff 10 was pulled out of his cell due to his complaints of chest pain. Plaintiff was placed in belly 11 chains and leg irons and strapped to a restraint chair and escorted to the medical unit. On 12 the way to the medical unit, Plaintiff stated, “I[’]m going to make officers do lots of 13 paperwork, over[]time without pay.” After medical staff cleared Plaintiff to return to his 14 housing unit, Plaintiff again stated, “[Y’]all bout to do lots of overtime without pay, 15 paperwork.” 16 Plaintiff was placed in a holding cell in the Bachman Detention Unit. Plaintiff stated 17 that he needed medical attention and “ha[d]” officers initiate another medical ICS. 18 Defendant Taylor came to the holding cell and told Plaintiff that he was “going on a

19 1 Plaintiff seeks monetary relief from Defendants in their official and individual 20 capacities. A suit against a defendant in his official capacity represents only another way of pleading an action against the entity that employs the defendant. Kentucky v. Graham, 21 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985). That is, the real party in interest is not the named defendant, but the entity that employs the defendant. Id. at 165. A claim against an individual in his or 22 her official capacity is “only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978). “[A] 23 suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official’s office. As such, it is no different from a suit against 24 the State itself.” Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (internal citation omitted). 25 Plaintiff cannot maintain a lawsuit for damages against Defendants in their official 26 capacities. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 27 (1991) (“State officials sued for damages in their official capacity are not ‘persons’ for purposes of the suit because they assume the 27 identity of the government that employs them.”); see also Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1327 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[A] state is not a ‘person’ for purposes of 28 section 1983.

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

Related

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)
Kentucky v. Graham
473 U.S. 159 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
491 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Hafer v. Melo
502 U.S. 21 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Hudson v. McMillian
503 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1992)
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)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
McMahon v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.
896 F.2d 17 (Second Circuit, 1990)
Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc.
931 F.2d 1320 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Conner 304527 v. Taylor, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conner-304527-v-taylor-azd-2024.