Conner 304527 v. Taylor

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided March 26, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-02525·Unknown

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.

15 On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff Dayshaun Darion Conner, who is confined in the 16 Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a January 10, 2024 18 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because 19 Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended 20 complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 21 On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8). The 22 Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 23 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 24 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 25 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 27 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 28 1 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 2 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 3 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 4 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 5 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 6 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 7 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 8 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 9 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 10 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 11 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 12 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 13 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 14 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 15 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 16 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 17 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 18 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 19 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 20 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 21 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 22 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 23 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 24 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 25 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 26 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, but 27 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 28 to amend. 1 II. First Amended Complaint 2 In his single-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names the Arizona 3 Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry (ADC) as the sole Defendant. 4 Plaintiff asserts an Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force. He seeks compensatory 5 relief and punitive damages, as well as his costs and fees for this case. 6 Plaintiff alleges the following: 7 On October 12, 2023, during an Incident Command System (ICS), unnamed 8 correctional officers (COs) abused their power by failing to follow ADC Department Order 9 501, Employee Professionalism, Ethics, and Conduct. The COs used excessive force 10 against Plaintiff while he was already subdued and subjected to multiple restraints. 11 Specifically, the COs tased and choked Plaintiff, then struck him on the right side of his 12 head with closed fists. The COs “continued to disobey” Department Orders by failing to 13 appropriately handle the situation. The COs did not want to “do unnecessary paperwork” 14 and, instead, placed Plaintiff on a security watch. Plaintiff refused to go into the security 15 watch “without probable cause.” The COs “continued to use excessive force without 16 probable cause,” and as a result, Plaintiff suffered unwanted pain. 17 At some point, nurses “stuck” Plaintiff with an “unknown substance,” which caused 18 him to feel weak. Plaintiff “submitted[,] ending his refusal” to go on security watch 19 “without real probable cause.” Plaintiff suffered multiple cuts and bruises to his neck, 20 shoulder, back, wrist, and legs, and “mental abuse[]” from thinking that he would die from 21 being tased. Plaintiff also suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and paranoia, which 22 causes him to lose sleep and to have to take “psych medication.” 23 III. Failure to State a Claim 24 The Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry is not a proper 25 Defendant. Under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a 26 state or state agency may not be sued in federal court without its consent. Pennhurst State 27 Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 28 (9th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, “a state is not a ‘person’ for purposes of section 1983. 1 Likewise ‘arms of the State’ such as the Arizona Department of Corrections are not 2 ‘persons’ under section 1983.” Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1327 3 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). Therefore, the Court will dismiss Defendant Arizona 4 Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry. 5 Because Plaintiff has not named a proper Defendant, the Court will dismiss the First 6 Amended Complaint. 7 IV. Leave to Amend 8 Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a second amended complaint to cure the 9 deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form 10 to use for filing a second amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved 11 form, the Court may strike the second amended complaint and dismiss this action without 12 further notice to Plaintiff. 13 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “Second 14 Amended Complaint.” The second amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 15 entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 16 Complaint or First Amended Complaint by reference.

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

Conner 304527 v. Taylor, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Conner 304527 v. Taylor (Conner 304527 v. Taylor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1984)
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)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Taylor v. List
880 F.2d 1040 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc.
931 F.2d 1320 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)