Escobar v. Irby

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided March 5, 2024·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 (DMF) 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. In a November 26 17, 2023 Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend 27 because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a 28 second amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 1 On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 8). The 2 Court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 3 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 4 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 5 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 7 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 8 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 9 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 10 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 11 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 12 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 13 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 14 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 15 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 16 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 17 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 18 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 19 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 21 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 22 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 23 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 24 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 25 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 26 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 27 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 28 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 1 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 2 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 3 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 4 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 5 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, but 6 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 7 to amend. 8 II. Second Amended Complaint 9 In his two-count Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Captain Irene Barron 10 Irby, Sergeant Navarro, and Officers Raymer and Bernadino. Plaintiff asserts claims for 11 excessive force and a threat to his safety. He seeks monetary relief. 12 Plaintiff designates Count One as an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. 13 Plaintiff alleges that on February 16, 2023, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) 14 staff aggressively assaulted him, which he claims “clearly violated [his] civil rights and 15 broke the law.” That day, Plaintiff was at the medical unit for existing injuries, and a 16 “disagreement” occurred between Plaintiff and officers. According to Plaintiff, the officers 17 forcefully picked him up and escorted him back to his cell. Defendant Raymer grabbed 18 Plaintiff’s left arm, which was injured, and Defendant Bernadino grabbed Plaintiff’s right 19 arm. This “caused [Plaintiff] to resist,” and a “use of force/assist to the ground was 20 [necessary].” Both officers “attempted to slam [Plaintiff] on [his] face,” and Plaintiff 21 “assisted [him]self to the ground.” While Plaintiff was on the ground with both hands 22 behind his back, Defendants Raymer and Bernadino struck him with a closed fist at least 23 six times. Defendant Navarrao “just watched and failed to stop this ass[a]ult.” Plaintiff 24 suffered a “busted” nose, black eye, bruised ribs, emotional distress, pain and suffering, 25 psychological trauma, and post-traumatic stress disorder. 26 Plaintiff designates Count Two as a Fourteenth Amendment threat-to-safety claim. 27 He alleges that Defendants failed to keep him safe and violated his rights by putting him 28 in a “harmful situation” that led to their assault on him. 1 III. Failure to State a Claim 2 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 3 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 4 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 5 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 6 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury 7 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link 8 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 9 72, 377 (1976). 10 A. Defendant Irby 11 There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and therefore, a defendant’s 12 position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights 13 does not impose liability. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Hamilton 14 v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 1992); Taylor v.

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

Escobar v. Irby, (D. Ariz. 2024).

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

Related

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)
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)
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)
Lolli v. County Of Orange
351 F.3d 410 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Respublica v. Doan
1 U.S. 86 (Supreme Court, 1784)
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)