Derello 37292 v. McAdorey

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMarch 9, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-05884
StatusUnknown

This text of Derello 37292 v. McAdorey (Derello 37292 v. McAdorey) 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
Derello 37292 v. McAdorey, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Douglas W. Derello, No. CV 19-05884-PHX-MTL (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 McAdorey, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff Douglas W. Derello, who is confined in the 16 Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman (ASPC-Eyman) in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se 17 civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). In a January 15, 2020 Order, 18 the Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to either pay the filing and administrative fees or file 19 an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 20 On March 3, 2020, Plaintiff paid the filing and administrative fees. The Court will 21 dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 22 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 23 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 24 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 25 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 26 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 27 28 1 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 2 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 3 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 4 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 5 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 6 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 7 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 8 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 9 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 10 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 11 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 12 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 13 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 14 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 15 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 16 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 17 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 18 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 19 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 20 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 21 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 22 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 23 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 24 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 25 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 26 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 27 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 28 . . . . 1 II. Complaint 2 In his two-count Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants Deputy Wardens 3 McAdorey and L. Stickley, Assistant Deputy Warden S. Scott, Captain Montes, and 4 Sergeant Digiro. Plaintiff alleges violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment 5 rights to due process (Count One) and equal protection (Count Two) based on the same 6 facts. 7 Plaintiff contends he is a “3/3 medium custody” inmate who is being treated 8 differently than similarly situated inmates at ASPC-Eyman’s Special Management 9 Unit 1 (SMU 1). He claims he has been placed with “high level custody inmates in a 10 punitive and racially segregated housing area,” in violation of Arizona Department of 11 Corrections (ADC) policies and procedures, and he was not given notice or a hearing. 12 Plaintiff asserts he has been “forced in segregated housing amongst minatory conditions[, 13 c]oupled with retaliatory threats and deprivation of [his] constitutional rights by 14 [D]efendants.” 15 Plaintiff contends he is confined in a unit that has been the subject of months of 16 news coverage about “unlocked/unsafe” conditions, where inmates “slip in and out of their 17 cells without any check[s] and balances.” He claims the “shortage of staff and . . . superior 18 staff[’s] lackadaisical monitoring of video cameras has created a volatile environment for 19 both staff and inmates.” According to Plaintiff, similarly situated inmates who “become 20 3/3 medium custody” are reclassified out of this unit onto a medium custody yard, but 21 Defendants “through their actions or inaction have created [P]laintiff’s situation and denial 22 of his due process rights.” He claims he has been subjected to retaliation by Defendants 23 and purposely placed in this environment by Defendants in an effort to silence him from 24 “speaking out” by filing grievances and civil litigation. 25 Plaintiff claims that as a medium custody inmate, he is entitled to “medically 26 prescribed A.D.A. recreation,” hot meals, access to the courts, library access, property, his 27 “medically and court[-]ordered typewriter,” and other liberties, pursuant to ADC policy 28 and his federal constitutional rights. He also contends he should be seen by medical 1 personnel in a timely manner, not have to suffer in pain, and have his “A.D.A. issues treated 2 by medical within the contractual agreement they have with A.D.C. and the stipulation 3 imposed by the district court[].” 4 Plaintiff claims his “dilemma is done without any administrative penological 5 jurisdiction” and is “predicated on an antiquated trap[]door method A.D.C. has used 6 uncontestably throughout the years to skirt the protections afforded prisoners by the 7 [C]onstitution and federal statutes.” He also alleges Defendants “have falsified 8 documentation even to [the] U.S. [D]istrict [C]ourt to cover up their mistreatment [of 9 P]laintiff.” 10 III. Failure to State a Claim 11 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 12 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 13 v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a 14 liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the 15 claim that were not initially pled. Id. 16 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a 17 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 18 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode,

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 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)
Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell
981 F.2d 1062 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Russell Marcilis, II v. Township of Redford
693 F.3d 589 (Sixth Circuit, 2012)
Lanman v. Hinson
529 F.3d 673 (Sixth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Reese
2 F.3d 870 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Taylor v. List
880 F.2d 1040 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Derello 37292 v. McAdorey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/derello-37292-v-mcadorey-azd-2020.