Esposito v. Shinn

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedSeptember 28, 2022
Docket2:22-cv-00815
StatusUnknown

This text of Esposito v. Shinn (Esposito v. Shinn) 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
Esposito v. Shinn, (D. Ariz. 2022).

Opinion

1 ASH 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Ralph F. Esposito, No. CV 22-00815-PHX-JAT (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 David Shinn, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff Ralph F. Esposito, who is confined in the Arizona State 16 Prison Complex-Tucson, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 17 and a deficient Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a May 23, 2022 Order, the 18 Court denied the Application to Proceed and gave Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the filing 19 fee or submit a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 20 Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 5) and a new 21 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. By Order dated June 28, 2022, the Court found 22 that Plaintiff was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, and gave him 30 days to pay 23 the filing fees in full. Plaintiff has now done so, and has also filed a Motion for Preliminary 24 Injunction (Doc. 11). 25 The Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend, and deny 26 the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 27 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 28 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 1 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 3 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 4 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 5 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 6 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 7 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 8 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 9 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 10 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 11 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 12 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 13 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 14 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 15 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 16 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 17 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 18 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 19 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 20 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 21 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 22 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 23 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 24 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 25 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 26 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 27 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 28 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 1 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 2 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 3 to amend. 4 II. First Amended Complaint 5 In his two-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names Arizona Department of 6 Corrections (ADC) Director David Shinn, and Correctional Officers (CO) Saenze, Evers, 7 and Munoz1 as Defendants (collectively the “CO Defendants”). Plaintiff seeks declaratory, 8 monetary, and injunctive relief, including “restoration . . . [of his] proper release date…” 9 Plaintiff alleges two claims of retaliation. Although difficult to parse, it appears that 10 Plaintiff alleges in Count One that after he submitted a “notice of claim,”2 Defendants 11 retaliated against him by denying his community supervision release date, and revoking 12 certain earned release credits and temporary release credits. As a result, Plaintiff alleges 13 that his “new release date has been extended 579 days.” 14 In Count Two, Plaintiff appears to allege that after he submitted a different “notice 15 of claim,” the CO Defendants summoned him and directed him to “drop the current 16 lawsuit.” The CO Defendants further told him that “in order to be reclassed to a minimum 17 custody yard with less violent offenders [he had] to drop the lawsuit,” and also “stated in 18 an ‘indirect way’” that “due to [Plaintiff’s] charges which the inmate population might find 19 repulsive” that Plaintiff’s life would be in danger” if the other inmates found out what he 20 had been charged with. Plaintiff refused, and then “reported these facts on the Inspector 21 General Hotline.” A few days later, “an unprovoked attack occurred” and the inmates told 22 Plaintiff “to leave the yard.” Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was reclassed to minimum 23 custody and removed from the yard, but his “risk score was raised to a higher level.” 24 Plaintiff also alleges that he has been unable to get a “higher paying job,” and “suddenly 25 [ADC] recently extended [Plaintiff’s] prison term.” 26

27 1 Plaintiff appears to name Defendant Munoz twice. 28 2 The notice of claim was apparently in relation to a lawsuit that Plaintiff had recently filed, or planned to imminently file, in Arizona state court. 1 III. Failure to State a Claim 2 A. Count One 3 “[A] state prisoner seeking injunctive relief against the denial or revocation of good- 4 time credits must proceed in habeas corpus, and not under § 1983.” Nonnette v. Small, 316 5 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2002). Habeas corpus is the proper proceeding in which to 6 challenge the legality or duration of confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th 7 Cir. 1991) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). In contrast, a civil rights 8 action is the proper method for challenging the conditions of a prisoner’s confinement. Id. 9 (citing Preiser, 411 U.S. at 498-99); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 (9th Cir. 1979) 10 (the proper remedy for complaints challenging conditions of confinement is a civil rights 11 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

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

Related

United States v. Guerrero
5 F.3d 868 (Fifth Circuit, 1993)
Preiser v. Rodriguez
411 U.S. 475 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
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)
John Badea v. Harvey Cox
931 F.2d 573 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Environmental Council of Sacramento v. Slater
184 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (E.D. California, 2000)
Hines v. Gomez
108 F.3d 265 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Esposito v. Shinn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/esposito-v-shinn-azd-2022.