Evans v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Department

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMay 7, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-00197
StatusUnknown

This text of Evans v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Department (Evans v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Department) 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
Evans v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Department, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Opinion

1 KM 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Krista Danniel Evans, No. CV-25-00197-PHX-JAT (ASB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Self-represented Plaintiff Krista Danniel Evans, who is confined in a Maricopa 16 County Jail, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an 17 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the Application 18 to Proceed and will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 19 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 20 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $8.83. Id. The statutory 23 filing fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 24 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 26 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 II. 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 [self-represented litigant’s] filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 25 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a self-represented prisoner] 26 ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. 27 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 28 . . . . 1 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 2 facts, a self-represented litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before 3 dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 4 banc). Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it 5 may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 In her one-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, 8 Correctional Health Services (CHS), and the Maricopa County Estrella Jail for money 9 damages. 10 Plaintiff claims her safety is threatened by being housed in a facility with black 11 mold. She alleges Estrella Jail was “condemned in 1996 for health and safety reason[s].” 12 As her injury, Plaintiff states “it has affected [her] physical, emotional [and] mental 13 health.” 14 IV. Failure to State a Claim 15 A. Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office 16 The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not a proper defendant because it is a “non- 17 jural entity.” Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Braillard 18 v. Maricopa County, 232 P.3d 1263, 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)). In Arizona, the 19 responsibility of operating jails and caring for prisoners is placed by law upon the sheriff. 20 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 11-441(A)(5), 31-101. A sheriff’s office is simply an administrative 21 creation of the county sheriff to allow him to carry out his statutory duties and is not a 22 “person” amenable to suit pursuant to § 1983. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss 23 Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. 24 B. Defendant Estrella Jail 25 Section 1983 imposes liability on any “person” who violates an individual’s federal 26 rights while acting under color of state law. Congress intended municipalities and other 27 local government units to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies. 28 Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 689-90 (1978). However, the Estrella Jail is 1 a building or collection of buildings, not a person or legally created entity capable of being 2 sued. Thus, the Court will dismiss Defendant Estrella Jail. 3 C. Defendant CHS Medical Services 4 Defendant CHS Medical Services is an administrative subdivision of Maricopa 5 County. It is not a municipal corporation, local governing body, or private corporation, 6 and, therefore, it is not a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983. Thus, the Court will 7 dismiss Defendant CHS Medical Services. 8 Even if Plaintiff had sued Maricopa County, her allegations do not state a claim. A 9 municipality may not be sued solely because an injury was inflicted by its employees or 10 agents. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006).

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

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)
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 2007)
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)
Braillard v. Maricopa County
232 P.3d 1263 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2010)
Manuel Ortega Melendres v. Joseph Arpaio
784 F.3d 1254 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Hearns v. Terhune
413 F.3d 1036 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Sadoski v. Mosley
435 F.3d 1076 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Evans v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-maricopa-county-sheriffs-department-azd-2025.