Escobar v. Irby

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 16, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-02082
StatusUnknown

This text of Escobar v. Irby (Escobar v. Irby) 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
Escobar v. Irby, (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 Michael D. Escobar, No. CV-23-02082-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Irene Barron Irby, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On September 15, 2023, Plaintiff Michael D. Escobar, who is confined in a 16 Maricopa County Jail, filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, 17 Arizona, against Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) Captain Irene Barron Irby, 18 Sergeant Rushing, and Officers Moody and Murray. On October 6, 2023, Defendants filed 19 a Notice of Removal and removed the case to this Court. On October 13, 2023, Defendants 20 filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading/Motion to Dismiss. In 21 a November 9, 2023 Order, the Court determined removal was proper, dismissed the 22 Complaint with leave to amend because it was not filed on this Court’s approved form, and 23 denied as moot Defendants’ Motion. 24 Meanwhile, on November 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint and 25 an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 5), and on November 9, 2023, he filed 26 a Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 8). The Court was not aware of these filings when it 27 issued the November 9, 2023 Order. On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Second 28 Amended Complaint (Doc. 9), which supersedes the First Amended Complaint in its 1 entirety. The Court will deny as moot the Application to Proceed,1 dismiss the Second 2 Amended Complaint with leave to amend, and deny the Motion to Appoint Counsel 3 without prejudice. 4 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 5 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 6 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 7 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 8 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 9 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 10 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 11 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 12 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 13 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 14 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 15 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 16 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 17 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 18 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 19 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 20 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 21 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 22 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 23 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 24 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 25 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 26 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 27

28 1 Defendants paid the filing fees when they removed the case to this Court. Thus, Plaintiff does not need to pay the fees or file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 1 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 2 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 3 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 4 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 5 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 6 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 7 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 8 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 9 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 10 to amend. 11 II. Second Amended Complaint 12 In his two-count Second Amended Complaint,2 Plaintiff sues Captain Irene Barron 13 Irby, Sergeant Rushing, and Officers Moody and Murray. Plaintiff asserts an excessive 14 force claim, purportedly under the Sixth Amendment, and a threat-to-safety claim, 15 purportedly under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He seeks 16 monetary relief. 17 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that on March 27, 2023, an “incident” occurred that 18 could have been avoided if a supervisor had been called, as Plaintiff had requested. 19 Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Moody and Murray “cho[]se to entertain [Plaintiff’s] 20 frustration, which escalated the situation” until one of the officers struck Plaintiff with a 21 closed fist. Plaintiff claims Defendants Moody and Murray “proceeded to take part in a 22 physical altercation with [Plaintiff],” during which Plaintiff feared for his life and “decided 23 to defend [him]self.” Plaintiff alleges this was the second time that Defendants Moody and 24 Murray had assaulted him, and Plaintiff had filed a civil complaint against Moody and 25 Murray based on the prior incident.

26 2 Plaintiff indicates the source of this Court’s jurisdiction over the Second Amended 27 Complaint as 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Because Plaintiff names only state actors as 28 Defendants, the Court construes the Second Amended Complaint as brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Rushing “is aware of” Defendants Moody and 2 Murray’s aggressive behavior and “condones this type of mistreatment against inmates.” 3 As his injury, Plaintiff claims he suffered bruises on his neck and head, injuries from a 4 deployed taser, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychological trauma, and inadequate 5 medical treatment. 6 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that MCSO officers failed to abide by the United 7 States Constitution by failing to keep him safe and protect his rights. Plaintiff claims 8 Defendants Moody and Murray “intentionally ass[a]ulted” Plaintiff and physically harmed 9 him. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Rushing failed to discipline Defendants Moody and 10 Murray’s for the prior assault against Plaintiff, which “keeps this type of thing[] 11 happening” to detainees. 12 III. Failure to State a Claim 13 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 14 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 15 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St.

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)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Escobar v. Irby, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/escobar-v-irby-azd-2024.