Fox v. Arizona, State of

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 21, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01089
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Marcella Fox, No. CV-21-01089-PHX-MTL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 State of Arizona, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 I. 16 Plaintiff Marcella Fox commenced this action against the State of Arizona, Jason 17 McClelland, and certain current and former executive officials with the Arizona 18 Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry (“ADOC”). 19 Ms. Fox was employed by a third-party contractor and worked as a nurse at the 20 Arizona State Prison Complex in Florence, Arizona. (Doc. 1-4 at 2 ¶ 2.) Her Complaint 21 alleges that McClelland, a corrections officer formerly employed by ADOC at the same 22 facility, sexually assaulted her. (Id. at 7–9 ¶¶ 44–66.) 23 The Complaint also alleges a single claim for relief against Movants, contending 24 that they knew of, ratified, and/or acquiesced in “policies, customs, and practices” that 25 fostered and concealed sexual harassment. (Id. at 7 ¶¶ 42–43, 16–17 ¶¶ 3–12.) It further 26 alleges that the Movants had prior knowledge of McClelland’s “propensity for 27 inappropriate sexual behavior toward female prison employees.” (Id. at 16 ¶ 4.) 28 Now before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Van Winkle, 1 the facility’s warden; Ryan, who was, until his retirement in 2019, the ADOC director; and 2 Shinn, the current director (collectively “Movants”). (Doc. 9.) Neither party requested oral 3 argument. The Motion will be granted with leave to amend. 4 II. 5 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 6 pleader is entitled to relief” such that the defendant is given “fair notice of what 7 the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 8 545, 555 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 9 A complaint does not suffice “if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual 10 enhancement.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 11 at 556). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) “can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal 12 theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri 13 v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 14 The Court must accept material allegations in a complaint as true and construe them 15 in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. North Star Int’l v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 720 16 F.2d 578, 580 (9th Cir. 1983). “Indeed, factual challenges to a plaintiff’s complaint have 17 no bearing on the legal sufficiency of the allegations under Rule 12(b)(6).” See Lee v. City 18 of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). Review of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is 19 “limited to the content of the complaint.” North Star Int’l, 720 F.2d at 581. 20 III. 21 A. 22 The Complaint does not assert a single allegation against the Movants that is not 23 conclusory. For example, the allegation that Movants “knew that Defendant McClelland 24 had a propensity for inappropriate sexual behavior toward female prison employees” is 25 conclusory. (Doc. 1-4 at 16 ¶ 3.) There are no specific allegations that any of the Movants 26 even knew of McClelland as an employee, let alone knew of his behavior. Moreover, the 27 allegations that “supervisors and command staff” at the Florence facility “turn[ed] a blind 28 eye” to sexual harassment, thus “creat[ing] an atmosphere . . . without consequences” is 1 |] completely unsupported by facts. (/d. at 16 4 5.) 2 The Court’s decision is the same regarding the Complaint’s remaining allegations against Movants. They are simply unsupported conclusions, entirely devoid of any supporting facts. 5 The Complaint need not tell a detailed story, but it must at least allege some facts 6 || enabling the Movants to understand the allegations against them. The Complaint does not || do so. Instead, the Movants (and the Court) are left guessing as to how they could have 8 || known about McClelland’s alleged behavior and how they could have fostered the abusive environment that the Complaint alleges exists at the Florence prison. Stated 10 || simply, the exclusive use of conclusory allegations does not suffice under Twombly and || Jgbal. 12 B. 13 The Motion also argues that the Movants should be dismissed under the doctrine of qualified immunity. The Court will defer ruling on this issue pending the filing of an 15 || amended complaint, which may assert facts material to the qualified immunity determination. 17 IV. 18 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 19 1. The Motion (Doc. 9) is granted in part and denied in part. As to 20 || Defendants Van Winkle, Ryan, and Shinn, the Complaint is dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. | P. 12(b)(6). To the extent the Motion moves for dismissal based on qualified immunity, it 22 || is denied without prejudice and may be refiled in response to an amended complaint. 23 2. Should Plaintiff opt to file an amended complaint, it must be filed no later than Friday, February 4, 2022. 25 Dated this 21st day of January, 2022. 26

Michael T. Liburdi United States District Judge -3-