Elliott v. Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedDecember 17, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-02062
StatusUnknown

This text of Elliott v. Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail (Elliott v. Maricopa County Lower Buckeye 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
Elliott v. Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Opinion

1 WO SC 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Jason Michael Elliott, No. CV 21-02062-PHX-JAT (MHB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail, et 13 al., 14 Defendants.

15 16 Plaintiff Jason Michael Elliott, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, has filed 17 a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application 18 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave 19 to amend. 20 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 21 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $42.13. The remainder 24 of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 25 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 26 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 27 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 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 pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 25 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 26 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 27 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 pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 2 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 3 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 4 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 5 III. Complaint 6 In his three-count Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims concerning his conditions of 7 confinement and threat to safety. Plaintiff names the Maricopa County Lower Buckeye 8 Jail (LBJ) and the Maricopa County Towers Jail (“Towers”) as Defendants. Plaintiff seeks 9 injunctive and other relief. 10 In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that he is housed in a “legally condemned” facility, 11 which constitutes a threat to safety. As his injury, he asserts he is at risk of mesothelioma. 12 In Count II, Plaintiff alleges the following: 13 Since October 12, 2021, Plaintiff has been under quarantine due to COVID-19 in 14 LBJ. As a result, three court dates have had to be rescheduled. Plaintiff has tested negative 15 for the COVID virus three times but continues to be quarantined with detainees who either 16 have COVID or have been exposed to COVID. As a result, Plaintiff’s quarantine has been 17 continued another two weeks and further pushed back court dates. As his injury, Plaintiff 18 alleges he has been prevented from going to court in a timely manner. 19 In Count III, Plaintiff alleges that “they” are entrapping him in harsh and unsanitary 20 living conditions. In addition, “they” have also failed to provide Plaintiff with cleaning 21 materials to make the facility a COVID-free environment. “They” have also transferred 22 new detainees, who have symptoms of COVID, into his pod. As his injury, Plaintiff alleges 23 that no protocol is being followed for quarantining. 24 IV. Failure to State a Claim 25 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 26 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 27 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 28 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 1 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury 2 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link 3 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 4 72, 377 (1976). 5 A. Failure to Name a Proper Defendant 6 Plaintiff names LBJ and the Towers Jail as Defendants. However, neither is a proper 7 Defendant. Claims under § 1983 are directed at “bodies politic and corporate.” Monell v. 8 Dept. of Soc. Serv. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 688-89 (1978). Under the Civil Rights 9 Act of 1871, Congress intended municipalities and other local government units to be 10 included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies. Id. at 689-690. Because a jail is 11 neither a corporation nor a body politic, it is not a person for purposes of § 1983.

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

Related

Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
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)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
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)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Elliott v. Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-maricopa-county-lower-buckeye-jail-azd-2021.