Esposito v. Shinn

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided December 19, 2022·No. 2:22-cv-00815·Unknown

Opinion

1 ASH 2 WO 3 4 5 8 9 Ralph F. Esposito, No. CV 22-00815-PHX-JAT (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 David Shinn, et al., 13 14 Defendants.

15 16 On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff Ralph F. Esposito, who is confined in the Arizona State 17 Prison Complex-Tucson, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 18 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. By Order dated May 23, 2022, the Court 19 denied the deficient Application to Proceed, and gave Plaintiff 30 days in which to either 20 pay the filing fees or to submit a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 21 On June 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, 22 and a First Amended Complaint. By Order dated June 28, 2022, the Court found the 23 Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed indicated the Plaintiff had sufficient monies to pay the 24 filing fees for this action, and gave him 30 days to do so. On July 13, 2022, Plaintiff paid 25 the filing fees for this action in full. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion for Preliminary 26 Injunction. In a September 28, 2022 Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended 27 Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim, and denied the Motion for 28 Preliminary Injunction. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended 1 complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 2 On October 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 13). The 3 Court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 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 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 28 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 1 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 2 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 3 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 4 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 5 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 6 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 7 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 8 to amend. 9 II. Second Amended Complaint 10 In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names Arizona Department of 11 Corrections (ADC) Director David Shinn, and Correctional Officers Saenze and Munoz as 12 Defendants. Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, as well as punitive 13 damages. 14 Plaintiff alleges two claims, both of which he styles as Due Process claims. In Count 15 One, Plaintiff alleges that he accrued “Good Time Credits” (GTCs) while incarcerated. 16 However, on April 22, 2022, Saenz informed Plaintiff that his GTCs had been revoked. 17 Plaintiff had not received any disciplinary tickets, nor was he given any explanation for or 18 way to contest the revocation of his GTCs, the effect of which was to prolong his 19 incarceration in prison. 20 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that on September 17, 2020, Munoz falsely classified 21 him as a sex offender. Plaintiff asserts that he has not been convicted of a sex crime, had 22 not been classified as a sex offender since he entered prison in 2014, and was not given an 23 explanation or way to contest the change in classification. The result of the sex offender 24 classification was to raise his internal risk factor score from 2 to 3, making him ineligible 25 for housing on certain yards, from holding certain jobs, and that he has now been “place[d] 26 next to more violent offenders.” Plaintiff also indicates that “shortly after” he was 27 classified as a sex offender “he lost his good time credits.” 28 . . . . 1 III. Failure to State a Claim 2 A. Count One 3 As the Court explained in its September 28, 2022 Order, “a state prisoner seeking 4 injunctive relief against the denial or revocation of good-time credits must proceed in 5 habeas corpus, and not under § 1983.” Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 6 2002). Habeas corpus is the proper proceeding in which to challenge the legality or 7 duration of confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Preiser 8 v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). In contrast, a civil rights action is the proper 9 method for challenging the conditions of a prisoner’s confinement. Id. (citing Preiser, 411 10 U.S. at 498-99); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 (9th Cir. 1979) (the proper remedy 11 for complaints challenging conditions of confinement is a civil rights action under 42 12 U.S.C. § 1983). 13 Here, Plaintiff’s claim, if decided in his favor, would either invalidate or imply the 14 invalidity of the deprivation of his GTCs, and his claim is therefore barred. If

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

Esposito v. Shinn, (D. Ariz. 2022).

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

Related

Preiser v. Rodriguez
411 U.S. 475 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Sandin v. Conner
515 U.S. 472 (Supreme Court, 1995)
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)
Manuel Lucero v. Dan Russell, Acting Warden
741 F.2d 1129 (Ninth Circuit, 1984)
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)
Alvin Jones v. Dennis A. Baker
155 F.3d 810 (Sixth Circuit, 1998)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Smith v. Mensinger
293 F.3d 641 (Third Circuit, 2002)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Rizzo v. Dawson
778 F.2d 527 (Ninth Circuit, 1985)