Crea v. Maricopa County Estrella Jail

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedSeptember 29, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-02500
StatusUnknown

This text of Crea v. Maricopa County Estrella Jail (Crea v. Maricopa County Estrella Jail) 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
Crea v. Maricopa County Estrella Jail, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Opinion

1 KM 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Krystal Michelle Crea, No. CV-25-02500-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Maricopa County Estrella Jail, 13 Defendant.

15 Self-represented Plaintiff Krystal Michelle Crea, who is confined in a Maricopa 16 County Jail, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an 17 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court will grant the Application to Proceed 18 and 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 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 II. 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 [self-represented litigant’s] filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 25 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a self-represented prisoner] 26 ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. 27 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 28 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 1 facts, a self-represented litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before 2 dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 3 banc). Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it 4 may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 5 III. Complaint 6 In her one-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and 7 Estrella Jail for money damages. Plaintiff alleges the Estrella Jail is “overrun with black 8 mold [that is] in our water sources, our bathrooms, showers, sinks and even the air we 9 breathe . . . [and] has also been dripping on us, our beds, and the floors as well.” She 10 claims prisoners are expected to clean the dorms up to three times per day “with only gloves 11 as personal protective gear to protect [them] from the mold.” Plaintiff contends “MCSO 12 knows there is an issue because they have a house keeping crew that comes thru normally 13 twice a week” and “after the cleaning it seems to increase the breathing issues, . . . nose 14 bleeds, coughing, wheezing, headaches, and more.” She claims the housekeeping crews 15 are provided masks, gloves, boots, and strong cleaners that nevertheless “do little to 16 nothing to combat the mold.” According to Plaintiff, “the facility has been condemned and 17 yet they continue to house us here.” As her injury, Plaintiff states she suffers extreme 18 congestion, sinus migraines, a sore throat, nose bleeds, foot fungus, and “worsening 19 depression.” 20 IV. Failure to State a Claim 21 Section 1983 imposes liability on any “person” who violates an individual’s federal 22 rights while acting under color of state law. Congress intended municipalities and other 23 local government units to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies. 24 Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 689-90 (1978). However, the Estrella Jail is 25 a building or collection of buildings, not a person or legally created entity capable of being 26 sued. Thus, the Court will dismiss Defendant Estrella Jail. 27 Further, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not a proper defendant because it 28 is a “non-jural entity.” Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing 1 Braillard v. Maricopa County, 232 P.3d 1263, 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)). In Arizona, 2 the responsibility of operating jails and caring for prisoners is placed by law upon the 3 sheriff. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 11-441(A)(5), 31-101. A sheriff’s office is simply an 4 administrative creation of the county sheriff to allow him to carry out his statutory duties 5 and is not a “person” amenable to suit pursuant to § 1983. Accordingly, the Court will 6 dismiss Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. 7 V. Leave to Amend 8 For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to 9 state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

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

Related

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)
Bell v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Braillard v. Maricopa County
232 P.3d 1263 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2010)
Manuel Ortega Melendres v. Joseph Arpaio
784 F.3d 1254 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Hearns v. Terhune
413 F.3d 1036 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
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)
Alvarez-Machain v. United States
107 F.3d 696 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
Hoptowit v. Ray
682 F.2d 1237 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)
McMahon v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.
896 F.2d 17 (Second Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Crea v. Maricopa County Estrella Jail, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crea-v-maricopa-county-estrella-jail-azd-2025.