Escobar v. Irby

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided November 17, 2023·No. 2:23-cv-01740·Unknown

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Michael D. Escobar, No. CV-23-01740-PHX-JAT (DFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Irene Barron Irby, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On July 27, 2023, Plaintiff Michael D. Escobar, who is confined in a Maricopa 16 County Jail, filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, against 17 Irene Barron Irby, Sergeant Navarro, Officer Raymer, and Officer Bernardino. On August 18 22, 2023, Defendants Irby, Navarro, and Bernardino filed a Notice of Removal and 19 removed the case to this Court. On August 28, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion for 20 Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading/Motion to Dismiss. In an October 23, 2023 21 Order, the Court determined removal was proper and dismissed the Complaint with leave 22 to amend because it was not filed on a court-approved form. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 23 days to file an amended complaint using the court-approved form. The Court denied as 24 moot Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time. 25 On November 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 6). 26 Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 4). The Court will deny 27 the Motion without prejudice and dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to 28 amend. 1 I. 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 First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 4 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 5 to amend. 6 II. First Amended Complaint 7 In his two-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Lower Buckeye Jail 8 Captain Irene Barron Irby, Sergeant Navarro, and Officers Raymer and Bernadino. 9 Plaintiff asserts claims of excessive force and a threat to his safety. He seeks monetary 10 relief. 11 Plaintiff designates Count One as an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. 12 Plaintiff alleges that on February 16, 2023, while Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office 13 officers were escorting him to his cell, a “use of force and as[s]ist to the ground was 14 ne[cessary].” Plaintiff asserts that two officers, each holding one of Plaintiff’s arms, 15 attempted to “slam [him] on the ground.” Plaintiff claims that while he was on the ground, 16 Defendant Raymer repeatedly punched him in the face and ribs, although Plaintiff was 17 already restrained with both hands behind his back. Plaintiff contends that “all [three] 18 officers played a role in this altercation” because Defendants Raymer and Bernadino 19 assaulted him, and Defendant Navarro “watched [and] did not attempt to stop” the assault. 20 As his injury, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered a “busted nose with blood” and a swollen 21 black eye. 22 Plaintiff designates Count Two as a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim. 23 Plaintiff alleges that MCSO officers failed to keep him safe. Plaintiff asserts that 24 Defendants Raymer and Bernadino “both intentionally assaulted [him]” and “physically 25 harmed [his] well[-]being.” Plaintiff claims Defendant Navarro failed to keep Plaintiff safe 26 and “condone[d] this type of behavior with his officers.” 27 III. Failure to State a Claim 28 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 1 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 2 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 3 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 4 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury 5 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link 6 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 7 72, 377 (1976). 8 A. Defendant Irby 9 There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and therefore, a defendant’s 10 position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights 11 does not impose liability. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Hamilton 12 v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 1992); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th 13 Cir. 1989). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a 14 plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own 15 individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676.

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

Escobar v. Irby, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Escobar v. Irby (Escobar v. Irby) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1989)
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)
Taylor v. List
880 F.2d 1040 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
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)
Valjeanne Currie v. Group Insurance Commission
290 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2002)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Kingsley v. Hendrickson
576 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court, 2015)