De Rego v. Hernandez

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 27, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-02754
StatusUnknown

This text of De Rego v. Hernandez (De Rego v. Hernandez) 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
De Rego v. Hernandez, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Opinion

1 MH 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Kilani De Rego, No. CV-24-02754-PHX-JAT (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Tiana Hernandez, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Kilani De Rego, who is confined in the Saguaro Correctional Center, has 16 filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an 17 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint 18 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 $23.33. 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 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 II. Statutory Screening 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). Complaints filed in forma pauperis are also 8 subject to screening. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) (in a case in which a plaintiff has been granted 9 in forma pauperis status, the court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines 10 that . . . (B) the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which 11 relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 12 from such relief”). 13 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 14 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 15 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 16 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 17 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 18 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 19 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 20 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 21 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 22 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 23 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 24 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 25 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 26 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 27 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 28 . . . . 1 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 2 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 3 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 4 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 5 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 6 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 7 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 8 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 9 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because it may 10 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 11 III. Complaint 12 In his three-count Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for First Amendment 13 retaliation. Plaintiff names Unit Manager Tiani Hernandez, Correctional Officer Billy 14 Montoya, Case Manager Cameille Susunkewa, Health Services Administrator Crystal 15 Shanley, and Investigator Michael Gawlik as Defendants. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive 16 relief and money damages. 17 Plaintiff alleges that on June 27, 2024, Defendant Montoya took Plaintiff’s medical 18 sunglasses from his cell and, when Plaintiff told Montoya he was going to file a grievance 19 against him, gave the sunglasses to Defendant Susunkewa in retaliation for Plaintiff’s use 20 of the grievance process. Later that day, Plaintiff told Defendant Hernandez he was going 21 to file a grievance against Montoya and Susunkewa, prompting Defendants Hernandez, 22 Susunkewa, and Shanley to destroy the sunglasses the following day as retaliation for 23 Plaintiff’s use of the grievance process. On July 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a grievance against 24 Hernandez based on the confiscation and destruction of his medical sunglasses. 25 Defendants Hernandez, Susunkewa, and Gawlik then placed Plaintiff on lockdown for 23 26 hours as punishment for filing grievances. Plaintiff asserts a retaliation claim against 27 Defendants Montoya and Susunkewa in Count One; Defendants Hernandez, Susunkewa, 28 1 and Shanley in Count Two; and Defendants Hernandez, Susunkewa, and Gawlik in Count 2 Three. 3 IV. Failure to State a Claim 4 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 5 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 6 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 7 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 8 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury 9 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link 10 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 11 72, 377 (1976). 12 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519

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)
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)
United States v. Leonard A. Pelullo
14 F.3d 881 (Third Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Edward Dane Jeffus
22 F.3d 554 (Fourth Circuit, 1994)
Russell Marcilis, II v. Township of Redford
693 F.3d 589 (Sixth Circuit, 2012)
Lanman v. Hinson
529 F.3d 673 (Sixth Circuit, 2008)
Gauvin v. Trombatore
682 F. Supp. 1067 (N.D. California, 1988)
M & N Plastics, Inc. v. Sebelius
997 F. Supp. 2d 19 (District of Columbia, 2013)
Hines v. Gomez
108 F.3d 265 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Sebastian Brown Productions, LLC v. Muzooka, Inc.
143 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. California, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
De Rego v. Hernandez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-rego-v-hernandez-azd-2025.