Denardo v. Penzone

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 17, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-02627
StatusUnknown

This text of Denardo v. Penzone (Denardo v. Penzone) 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
Denardo v. Penzone, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Davianna Denardo, No. CV-23-02627-PHX-JAT (MTM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Paul Penzone, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Davianna Denardo, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, has filed a 16 pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to 17 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to 18 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 $65.25. 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 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 her three-count Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary relief from the Maricopa 5 County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), Sheriff Paul Penzone, the Estrella Jail, and Maricopa 6 County Correctional Health Services (CHS). Plaintiff asserts claims regarding her 7 conditions of confinement. 8 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that there is a visible infestation and “colonization” 9 of toxic black mold in the showers, sinks, drinking water faucets, toilets, and ventilation 10 systems. Plaintiff asserts toxic mold passes spores that are carried in the air through 11 currents, and the spores “are toxic once inhaled and ingested or touched,” and “poisoning 12 is then endured.” Plaintiff claims the facility does not have the appropriate level of 13 healthcare available to test and diagnose black mold poisoning. Plaintiff alleges there is 14 also mold in the food. As her injury, Plaintiff asserts she has suffered emotional, physical, 15 and mental agony as well as long-term effects on her health. 16 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that MCSO and “appropriate authorities” have not 17 correctly used funds to fix the unconstitutional or illegal conditions in the jail. As her 18 injury, she claims she has experienced difficulty breathing and eating. 19 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that the standards of care “are not up to the correct 20 standards due to being sick” because of extended exposure to black mold. 21 IV. Failure to State a Claim 22 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 23 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived her of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 24 (4) caused her damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 25 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 26 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that she suffered a specific injury 27 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and she must allege an affirmative link 28 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 1 72, 377 (1976). 2 A. MCSO 3 The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not a proper defendant because it is a “non- 4 jural entity.” Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Braillard 5 v. Maricopa County, 232 P.3d 1263, 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)). In Arizona, the 6 responsibility of operating jails and caring for prisoners is placed by law upon the sheriff. 7 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 11-441(A)(5), 31-101.

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)
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)
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)
Gotbaum Ex Rel. Gotbaum v. City of Phoenix
617 F. Supp. 2d 878 (D. Arizona, 2008)
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)
Denardo v. Penzone, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denardo-v-penzone-azd-2024.