Gardner v. Maricopa County Watkins Jail

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided September 13, 2023·No. 2:23-cv-01450·Unknown

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Doncell Edward Gardner, No. CV-23-01450-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Maricopa County Watkins Jail, 13 Defendant.

15 Plaintiff Doncell Edward Gardner, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, has 16 filed a pro se 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 dismiss the Complaint 18 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 not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 23 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 24 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 26 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 27 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 28 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 1 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 3 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 4 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 5 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 6 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 7 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 8 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 9 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 10 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 11 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 12 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 13 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 14 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 15 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 16 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 17 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 18 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 19 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 20 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 21 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 22 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 23 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 24 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 25 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 26 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 27 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 28 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 2 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 3 III. Complaint 4 In his Complaint, Plaintiff names the Watkins Jail as the sole Defendant. Plaintiff 5 asserts a claim regarding his conditions of confinement. He seeks monetary relief and 6 “corrective actions.” 7 Plaintiff alleges that he receives only two meals per day, although the Maricopa 8 County Sheriff’s Office website “advertis[es]” three meals per day “with variety selection.” 9 Plaintiff asserts he is “barely fed enough to thrive,” which is “done to boost sales from 10 MCSO’s overpriced commissary.” He claims there is “mold and/or black mold” in the jail, 11 which has been “confirmed” by other detainees, officers, and sergeants. Plaintiff alleges 12 that it can take weeks to receive medical attention, even for serious conditions. He asserts 13 allergies are “ignored,” and COVID-19 is “still an issue,” but there are up to ten detainees 14 housed in a 20 foot by 15-foot space, resulting in outbreaks of COVID-19. Plaintiff claims 15 that although “simple green was sprayed,” and detainees were instructed to clean, without 16 personal protective equipment, mold grew back, and detainees “had to continue to live in 17 conditions.” Plaintiff alleges he has had “various allergy flare ups,” headaches, “countless” 18 sleepless nights, difficulty breathing, nosebleeds, and an itchy throat. 19 IV. Failure to State a Claim 20 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 21 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 22 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 23 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 24 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury 25 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link 26 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 27 72, 377 (1976). 28 Section 1983 imposes liability on any “person” who violates an individual’s federal 1 rights while acting under color of state law. Congress intended municipalities and other 2 local government units to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies. 3 Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 689-90 (1978). However, the Watkins Jail is 4 a building or collection of buildings, not a person or legally created entity capable of being 5 sued. Thus, the Court will dismiss Defendant Watkins Jail. 6 Because Plaintiff has not named a proper Defendant, he fails to state a claim in the 7 Complaint, and it will be dismissed. 8 V. Leave to Amend 9 For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to 10 state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

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

Gardner v. Maricopa County Watkins Jail, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Gardner v. Maricopa County Watkins Jail (Gardner v. Maricopa County Watkins Jail) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)
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)
United States v. Johnnie T. Warren
25 F.3d 890 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Hearns v. Terhune
413 F.3d 1036 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
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)
Alvarez-Machain v. United States
107 F.3d 696 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Hoptowit v. Ray
682 F.2d 1237 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)
McMahon v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.
896 F.2d 17 (Second Circuit, 1990)