Floyd 314078 v. Thornell

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedApril 18, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-00486
StatusUnknown

This text of Floyd 314078 v. Thornell (Floyd 314078 v. Thornell) 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
Floyd 314078 v. Thornell, (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 William Leewood Floyd, No. CV-24-00486-PHX-JAT (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Ryan Thornell, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On March 7, 2024, Plaintiff William Leewood Floyd, who is confined in the 16 Arizona State Prison Complex-Yuma, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a March 26, 18 2024 Order, the Court denied the deficient Application to Proceed with leave to refile 19 within 30 days. 20 On April 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a new Application to Proceed In Forma 21 Pauperis (Doc. 8). The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 22 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 23 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 24 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $7.54. The remainder of 26 the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 27 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 1 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 2 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 3 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 4 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 5 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 6 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 7 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 8 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 9 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 10 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 11 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 12 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 13 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 14 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 15 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 16 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 17 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 18 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 19 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 20 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 21 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 22 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 23 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 24 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 25 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 26 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 27 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 28 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 1 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 2 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 3 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 4 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because it may 5 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 In his Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary relief from Arizona Department of 8 Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry (ADC) Director Ryan Thornell and Warden R. 9 Suarez. Plaintiff asserts claims regarding disciplinary proceedings and a threat to his 10 safety. 11 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully accused of sexual assault and 12 was not allowed to properly defend himself due to improper investigation by staff, which 13 violated his right to due process. 14 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that being accused of sexual assault “posed a threat 15 to [his] safety” because he had to “deal with the politics” in the prison setting. Plaintiff 16 asserts the false testimony against “left [him] scared for [his] life.” 17 IV. Failure to State a Claim 18 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 19 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 20 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 21 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 22 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury 23 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link 24 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 25 72, 377 (1976). 26 Plaintiff fails to connect any of the allegations in the Complaint to Defendants 27 Thornell and Suarez. Plaintiff fails to state a claim in the Complaint, and it will be 28 dismissed. 1 V. Leave to Amend 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to 3 state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a 4 first amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will 5 mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff 6 fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the amended complaint and 7 dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 8 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First 9 Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 10 entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 11 Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 12 A first amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Ferdik v.

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)
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)
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)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Taylor v. List
880 F.2d 1040 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Floyd 314078 v. Thornell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/floyd-314078-v-thornell-azd-2024.