Gerardo v. Unknown Party

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided November 6, 2023·No. 2:23-cv-01444·Unknown

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, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On July 21, 2023, Plaintiff Erika Rose Gerardo, who is confined in a Maricopa 16 County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an 17 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an August 3, 2023 Order, the Court granted 18 the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to 19 state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the 20 deficiencies identified in the Order. 21 On August 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7). The 22 Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 23 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 24 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 25 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 27 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 28 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 1 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 2 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 3 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 4 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 5 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 6 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 7 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 8 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 9 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 10 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 11 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 12 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 13 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 14 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 15 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 16 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 17 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 18 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 19 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 20 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 21 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 22 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 23 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 24 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 25 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 26 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 27 to amend. 28 . . . . 1 II. First Amended Complaint 2 In her First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary relief from Maricopa 3 County Sheriff Paul Penzone. Plaintiff alleges that each time she was incarcerated in the 4 Estrella Jail, she was told there was a “mold infection going on in the walls,” and that is 5 why “green show[s]” on the walls. Plaintiff asserts she has suffered severe heart attacks 6 and dizziness, but the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office failed to take her to the hospital. 7 Plaintiff claims she was twice referred for heart surgery, but she is currently homeless and 8 trying to reunite with her family. Plaintiff alleges that she is assigned to a top bunk and 9 experiences dizziness when she lays on her back or sides, and although a bottom bunk is 10 available, “they” always send her to the medical unit and tell her she has COVID-19. 11 Plaintiff asserts the mold is affecting her heart and her pacemaker. 12 III. Failure to State a Claim 13 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 14 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 15 v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a 16 liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the 17 claim that were not initially pled. Id. 18 A pretrial detainee has a right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 19 Amendment to be free from punishment prior to an adjudication of guilt. Bell v. Wolfish, 20 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). “Pretrial detainees are entitled to ‘adequate food, clothing, 21 shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.’” Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 22 107 F.3d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 23 1982)). To state a claim of unconstitutional conditions of confinement against an 24 individual defendant, a pretrial detainee must allege facts that show: 25 (i) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; 26 (ii) those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of 27 suffering serious harm; (iii) the defendant did not take reasonable available measures to abate that risk, even though a 28 reasonable official in the circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk involved—making the 1 consequences of the defendant’s conduct obvious; and (iv) by 2 not taking such measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff’s injuries. 3 4 Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018). 5 Whether the conditions and conduct rise to the level of a constitutional violation is 6 an objective assessment that turns on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. 7 Id.; Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005). However, “a de minimis 8 level of imposition” is insufficient. Bell, 441 U.S. at 539 n.21. In addition, the “‘mere lack 9 of due care by a state official’ does not deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property 10 under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Castro v.

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

Gerardo v. Unknown Party, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Gerardo v. Unknown Party (Gerardo v. Unknown Party) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Green v. Biddle
21 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1823)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
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)
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)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
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)