Gaines v. Synes

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: March 30, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-05621
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO KM 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Bradley Ryan Gaines, No. CV 19-05621-PHX-MTL (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Jessica Synes, et al., 13 14 Defendants.

15 16 On November 14, 2019, Plaintiff Bradley Ryan Gaines, who is confined in a 17 Maricopa County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 18 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a January 22, 2020 Order, the Court 19 granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had 20 failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that 21 cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 22 On February 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7). The 23 Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint and this action. 24 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 25 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 26 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 27 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 28 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 1 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 2 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 3 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 4 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 5 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 6 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 7 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 8 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 9 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 10 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 11 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 12 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 13 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 14 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 15 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 16 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 17 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 18 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 19 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 20 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 21 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 22 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 23 II. First Amended Complaint 24 Plaintiff names Probation Officer Jessica Synze as Defendant in his one-count First 25 Amended Complaint and seeks money damages. Plaintiff alleges he was retaliated against, 26 in violation of the Eighth Amendment, when Defendant “[k]new no monitor was to be put 27 on [Plaintiff’s] ankle and it was done any way, this was due to her listening to Jeff and 28 Amanda not her own [opinion].” As his injury, Plaintiff states “I had a monitor placed on 1 me to be monitored.” 2 III. Failure to State a Claim 3 A viable claim of First Amendment retaliation contains five basic elements: (1) an 4 assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of 5 (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise 6 of his First Amendment rights (or that the inmate suffered more than minimal harm) and 7 (5) did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 8 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). Further, although pro se pleadings are liberally 9 construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague 10 allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 11 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). A liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may 12 not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled. Id. 13 Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Synze acted because Plaintiff’s protected 14 conduct and therefore fails to state a retaliation claim. Moreover, as in the original 15 Complaint, Plaintiff’s allegations are vague. Plaintiff does alleges when or for how long 16 he was required to wear an ankle monitor, how the monitor violated his terms of probation, 17 or how he was harmed by being required to wear the monitor. Plaintiff has therefore failed 18 to state a claim. 19 IV. Dismissal without Leave to Amend 20 Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim in his First Amended Complaint, the 21 Court will dismiss his First Amended Complaint. “Leave to amend need not be given if a 22 complaint, as amended, is subject to dismissal.” Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 23 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is 24 particularly broad where Plaintiff has previously been permitted to amend his complaint. 25 Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996). 26 Repeated failure to cure deficiencies is one of the factors to be considered in deciding 27 whether justice requires granting leave to amend. Moore, 885 F.2d at 538. The Court 28 finds that further opportunities to amend would be futile. Therefore, the Court, in its 1 | discretion, will dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint without leave to amend. 2| ITIS ORDERED: 3 (1) Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) and this action are dismissed 4 for failure to state a claim, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 5 (2) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the dismissal for failure to state a claim may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 7 (3) | The docket shall reflect that the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) 8 | and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), has considered whether an appeal 9| of this decision would be taken in good faith and finds Plaintiff may appeal in forma 10 | pauperis. 11 Dated this 30th day of March, 2020. 12

Michael T. Liburdi 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28