Curley v. Maricopa County Estrella Jail

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedAugust 22, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-02036
StatusUnknown

This text of Curley v. Maricopa County Estrella Jail (Curley 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
Curley v. Maricopa County Estrella Jail, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 MDR 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Cheryl Marie Curley,1 No. CV-24-02036-PHX-JAT (ASB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Jails, et al., 13 14 Defendants.

15 16 Self-represented Plaintiff Cheryl Marie Curley, who is confined in a Maricopa 17 County Jail, filed a civil rights Complaint2 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma 18 Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed and will dismiss the 19 Complaint with leave to amend. 20 . . . . 21 . . . . 22 23 1 Plaintiff contends she is “part of the class action lawsuit case with.” She does not indicate which class action she believes she is a part of. She refers elsewhere in the 24 Complaint to a lawsuit filed by Tanya Delgadillo Nareau, Nareau v. Tempe Police Station, CV-24-01363-PHX-DGC (CDB), but that lawsuit is not a class action. 25 2 Plaintiff alleges the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to “medical and inhumane 26 housing” and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). However, “medical and inhumane housing” is not a jurisdictional basis, 27 and Plaintiff is only suing state actors. The Court will construe Plaintiff’s claims as having been asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 28 1996) (“Actions under § 1983 and those under Bivens are identical save for the replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a federal actor under Bivens.” (quoting Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991))). 1 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 2 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 3 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $8.20. The remainder of 5 the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 6 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 7 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 8 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 9 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 10 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 11 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 12 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 13 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 14 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 15 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 16 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 17 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 18 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 19 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 20 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 21 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 22 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 23 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 24 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 25 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 26 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 27 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 28 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 1 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 2 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 3 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 4 must “continue to construe [self-represented parties’] filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 5 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a self-represented prisoner] 6 ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. 7 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 8 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 9 facts, a self-represented litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before 10 dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 11 banc). The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint because it fails to state a claim, with 12 leave to amend because it may possibly be amended to state a claim. 13 III. Complaint 14 In her one-count Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from Defendants 15 Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Jails, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, and 16 Correctional Health. Plaintiff contends she is being subjected to “[i]nhumane housing” in 17 “unsanitary conditions” that are “full of black mold” and “bad for health.” She asserts 18 unspecified “prior litigation[]” held that the “black mold infestation” at the Estrella Jail is 19 “hazardous to health” and is an “active live parasite and fungi.” Plaintiff claims her “health 20 has been decreased,” she has become “sick more,” and her immune system is 21 “dimin[i]shed.” 22 IV. Failure to State a Claim 23 Although self-represented pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 24 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of 25 action. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal 26 interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim 27 that were not initially pled. Id. 28 . . . . 1 A. Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office 2 The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not a proper defendant because it is a “non- 3 jural entity.” Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Braillard 4 v. Maricopa County, 232 P.3d 1263, 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)).

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)
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)
Carol Van Strum Paul E. Merrell v. John C. Lawn
940 F.2d 406 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)
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)
Sadoski v. Mosley
435 F.3d 1076 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Curley v. Maricopa County Estrella Jail, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curley-v-maricopa-county-estrella-jail-azd-2024.