Gerardo v. Unknown Party

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedAugust 3, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-01444
StatusUnknown

This text of Gerardo v. Unknown Party (Gerardo v. Unknown Party) 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
Gerardo v. Unknown Party, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Erika Rose Gerardo, No. CV-23-01444-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Unknown Party, 13 Defendant.

15 Plaintiff Erika Rose Gerardo, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, has filed 16 a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application 17 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave 18 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. Discussion of Complaint 4 In her Complaint, Plaintiff names “E” as the sole Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that 5 every time she is in the Estrella Jail, she is told there is a “mold infection going on in th[e] 6 walls.” Plaintiff asserts she has severe heart attacks and dizziness. She claims the 7 Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office failed to take her to the hospital, and she “feel[s] like 8 [she] might die.” Plaintiff alleges that she once “almost d[ie]d in [her] bed/sleep” and 9 could not wake up, and on another occasions, she almost died of dizziness. Plaintiff asserts 10 that she is assigned to a top bunk and is “getting dizziness” whether she lays on either side 11 or on her back. Plaintiff claims that “they always send [her] to medical,” telling her that 12 she has COVID-19. Plaintiff alleges that she twice was referred for heart surgery, but she 13 is put under observation instead of sent to the hospital. Plaintiff appears to assert that mold 14 in the jail is causing issues with her pacemaker. 15 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 16 (2) under color of state law (3) her of federal rights, privileges or immunities and (4) caused 17 her damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2005) 18 (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 1284 19 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that she suffered a specific injury as a 20 result of the conduct of a particular defendant and she must allege an affirmative link 21 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 22 72, 377 (1976). 23 Plaintiff has not named a proper Defendant in the Complaint, and it will therefore 24 be dismissed. 25 IV. Leave to Amend 26 For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to 27 state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a 28 first amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will 1 mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff 2 fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the amended complaint and 3 dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 4 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First 5 Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 6 entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 7 Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 8 A first amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 9 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios 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)
Bell v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1989)
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. Leonard A. Pelullo
14 F.3d 881 (Third Circuit, 1994)
In Re B. A. Montgomery & Son
17 F.2d 404 (N.D. Ohio, 1927)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gerardo v. Unknown Party, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerardo-v-unknown-party-azd-2023.