Gilbert v. Maricopa County Estrella Jail

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedAugust 18, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-02399
StatusUnknown

This text of Gilbert v. Maricopa County Estrella Jail (Gilbert v. Maricopa County Estrella Jail) 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
Gilbert v. Maricopa County Estrella Jail, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Chelsea Denae Gilbert, No. CV-25-02399-PHX-JAT (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Maricopa County Estrella Jail, 13 Defendant.

15 Plaintiff Chelsea Denae Gilbert, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, has 16 filed a pro se civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma 17 Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 18 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 19 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $8.33. The remainder of 22 the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 23 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 24 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 25 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 26 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 27 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 28 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 1 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 2 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which 3 relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 4 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 5 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 6 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 7 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 8 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 9 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 10 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 11 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 12 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 13 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 14 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 15 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 16 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 17 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 18 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 19 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 20 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 21 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 22 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 23 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 24 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 25 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 26 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 27 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 28 1 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint 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 her single-count Complaint,1 Plaintiff names the Maricopa County Estrella Jail 5 as the sole Defendant. Plaintiff asserts a threat-to-safety claim regarding her conditions of 6 confinement at the Estrella Jail. She seeks monetary relief. 7 Plaintiff alleges that her housing dorm is “full of mold,” and the HVAC system 8 above her bed blows “mildew/mold filled air” directly on her, causing severe allergies and 9 difficulty breathing. She asserts mildewed water also drips down on her, and she cannot 10 sleep as a result. Plaintiff claims her depression has been “deeply affected” and she fears 11 that if she does sleep, she might stop breathing. She alleges she must take medication “for 12 a tiny bit of relief.” Plaintiff asserts her eyes are “still burning[ and] blurry [and she] could 13 become blind” due to post-Lasik and corneal ulcer proclivity. She claims the mold caused 14 irreparable damage to her lungs, worsened her concussion, and prolonged the healing 15 process. Plaintiff alleges she became unable to perform activities of daily living. She 16 asserts the steam from showers provides the only reprieve, but the shower walls are covered 17 in mold. Plaintiff claims she was denied masks on several occasions and is “constantly 18 unable to breathe.” She alleges that taking allergy medications and Tylenol is very harmful 19 to her body and can destabilize her mental health regimen. As her injury, Plaintiff alleges 20 she has suffered extreme congestion, constant headaches leading to severe migraines, 21 severe sore throats, depression, anxiety, impaired vision, prolonged healing of her 22 concussion, and diarrhea. 23 IV. Failure to State a Claim 24 Section 1983 imposes liability on any “person” who violates an individual’s federal 25 rights while acting under color of state law. Congress intended municipalities and other 26 local government units to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies.

27 1 Plaintiff does not identify a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction over the Complaint. 28 Based on her allegations, the Court will construe the Complaint as brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 689-90 (1978). However, the Estrella Jail is 2 a building or collection of buildings, not a person or legally created entity capable of being 3 sued. Thus, the Court will dismiss Defendant Estrella Jail. 4 Because Plaintiff fails to name a proper Defendant, the Court will dismiss the 5 Complaint for failure to state a claim. 6 V. Leave to Amend 7 Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first amended complaint to cure the 8 deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form 9 to use for filing a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, 10 the Court may strike the amended complaint and dismiss this action without further notice 11 to Plaintiff.

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

Related

Brooks v. Marbury
24 U.S. 78 (Supreme Court, 1826)
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)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
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)
American Casualty Co. v. Baker
22 F.3d 880 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Alvarez-Machain v. United States
107 F.3d 696 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gilbert v. Maricopa County Estrella Jail, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilbert-v-maricopa-county-estrella-jail-azd-2025.