Emilio A. Monterola v. Maricopa County Correctional Health Services, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedNovember 5, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-02613
StatusUnknown

This text of Emilio A. Monterola v. Maricopa County Correctional Health Services, et al. (Emilio A. Monterola v. Maricopa County Correctional Health Services, et al.) 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
Emilio A. Monterola v. Maricopa County Correctional Health Services, et al., (D. Ariz. 2025).

Opinion

1 NH 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Emilio A. Monterola, No. CV-25-02613-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Maricopa County Correctional Health Services, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Emilio A. Monterola, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, has filed 16 a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application 17 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed 18 and dismiss the Complaint 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 $14.59. 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 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, fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 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 1 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 2 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 3 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 4 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because it may 5 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a Fourteenth Amendment claim for a threat to 8 safety and sues Maricopa County Correctional Health Services (CHS) and Nurse Faith D. 9 Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, and his court fees and costs. 10 Plaintiff claims that after suffering a Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) stroke and 11 being hospitalized for five days, he was “placed in the inf[i]rmary at [Lower Buckeye] Jail 12 [and] had to sleep on the floor.” Plaintiff asserts Defendant Faith forced medication into 13 his mouth against his will and threatened him by stating she would have detention officers 14 and other inmates beat him up and that she would not give him any food or water. 15 Allegedly, Defendant Faith harasses Plaintiff every time she passes his cell by flipping him 16 off and telling him that he will die in the jail. 17 Plaintiff asserts that on a separate occasion, Defendant Faith attacked him 18 physically, and a staff member and other inmates had to stop her from hitting him. 19 According to Plaintiff, she attacked him because he filed a grievance against her for forcing 20 medication on him. Plaintiff claims he is in fear and believes he may not “wake up one 21 day” because “she is a nurse and can do whatever . . . .” 22 Plaintiff alleges he is being deprived of “sleep [and] eating” and experienc[es] 23 severe emotional abuse” and PTSD. He also claims he has loose teeth from Defendant 24 Faith forcing her fingers in his mouth. 25 IV. Failure to State a Claim 26 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 27 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 28 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 1 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 2 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury 3 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link 4 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 5 72, 377 (1976). 6 A. Defendant Maricopa County Correctional Health Services (CHS) 7 Defendant CHS is an administrative subdivision of Maricopa County. It is not a 8 municipal corporation, local governing body, or private corporation, and, therefore, it is 9 not a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983. Thus, the Court will dismiss Defendant 10 CHS. 11 Even if Plaintiff had sued Maricopa County, his allegations do not state a claim. A 12 municipality may not be sued solely because an injury was inflicted by its employees or 13 agents. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006).

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)
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)
Alan Kimbrough McFadden v. Eddie Lucas
713 F.2d 143 (Fifth Circuit, 1983)
Charles J. Oltarzewski, Jr. v. Marcia Ruggiero
830 F.2d 136 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Hearns v. Terhune
413 F.3d 1036 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Sadoski v. Mosley
435 F.3d 1076 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Emilio A. Monterola v. Maricopa County Correctional Health Services, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emilio-a-monterola-v-maricopa-county-correctional-health-services-et-al-azd-2025.