Cordova v. Lamb

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedApril 6, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-01845
StatusUnknown

This text of Cordova v. Lamb (Cordova v. Lamb) 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
Cordova v. Lamb, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Opinion

1 ASH 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Johnny F. Cordova, No. CV 22-01845-PHX-JAT (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Mark Lamb, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Johnny F. Cordova, who is confined in the Pinal County Jail, has filed a 16 pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and, after being 17 directed to do so, a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 8). The 18 Court will 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 not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 23 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 24 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 26 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 names Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb, 5 Wexford Health, and the Pinal County Board of Supervisors as Defendants. Plaintiff 6 alleges claims related to treatment of his hepatitis and renal carcinoma, for which he seeks 7 monetary and injunctive relief. 8 IV. Failure to State a Claim 9 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 10 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 11 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 12 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 13 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury 14 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link 15 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 16 72, 377 (1976). 17 A. Pinal County Board of Supervisors 18 Plaintiff makes no allegations against the Pinal County Board of Supervisors. 19 Accordingly, the Pinal County Board of Supervisors will be dismissed. 20 B. Mark Lamb 21 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a 22 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 23 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo, 423 at 371-72, 377. There 24 is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and therefore, a defendant’s position as 25 the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not 26 impose liability. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Hamilton v. Endell, 27 981 F.2d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 1992); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 28 “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must 1 plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual 2 actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. 3 Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant Lamb personally participated in a 4 deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, was aware of a deprivation and failed to act, 5 or formed policies that resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries. Rather, Plaintiff’s only mention of 6 Defendant Lamb is that he oversees the Pinal County Jail. Thus, the Court will dismiss 7 without prejudice Defendant Lamb. 8 C.

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)
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)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1989)
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)
Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell
981 F.2d 1062 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Rhodes v. Robinson
408 F.3d 559 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Laurie Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc.
698 F.3d 1128 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Jonathon Castro v. County of Los Angeles
833 F.3d 1060 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Mary Gordon v. County of Orange
888 F.3d 1118 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cordova v. Lamb, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cordova-v-lamb-azd-2023.