Gobea v. Penzone

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedApril 15, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-00457
StatusUnknown

This text of Gobea v. Penzone (Gobea v. Penzone) 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
Gobea v. Penzone, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Alicia Gobea, No. CV-24-00457-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Paul Penzone, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Alicia Gobea, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, has filed a pro 16 se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to 17 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to 18 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 assess an initial partial filing fee of $9.00. The remainder of 23 the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 24 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 26 government 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). The 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 Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary relief from the Maricopa County 5 Sheriff’s Office, former Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone, the Estrella Jail, 6 Correctional Health Services and Director Dawn Noggle, and Maricopa County Board of 7 Supervisors Director Clint Hickman. Plaintiff asserts claims regarding her conditions of 8 confinement. 9 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that there is visible black mold in the showers, 10 bathroom, sinks, vents, and most of the walls in the living quarters. She asserts moldy 11 food, including bread and fruit, are distributed to detainees, including pregnant women and 12 women with special dietary needs. Plaintiff claims detainees are “kept confined in 13 overcrowded small spaces.” She contends the facility “knowingly does not provide 14 appropriate healthcare in a timely manner,” including pregnant and immunosuppressed 15 women. Plaintiff alleges that since her incarceration, she has experienced difficulty 16 breathing at night, “abdominal upset,” headaches, and lack of sleep. She asserts she is 17 housed “directly next to the showers under several vents and next to one of [the] water 18 closets,” which has rats and “molded towels on the floor.” Plaintiff claims detention 19 officers joke that the sound of the doors locking and unlocking “stirs the rats.” Plaintiff 20 alleges there is also a “heavy presence of gnats that to [her] knowledge [has] never been 21 addressed.” As her injury, Plaintiff asserts she has suffered deterioration of mental, 22 emotional, and physical health, digestive issues, and psychological damage that will be 23 “forever [e]mbedded in [her] memory.” 24 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges the standard of care “is practically non-exist[e]nt” 25 because “the facility ignores the current and long[-]term issues being caused by mold 26 throughout the building and food products.” 27 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that MCSO and “appropriate authorities” have 28 made “incorrect use of funds . . . to fix such unconstitutional or illegal conditions that 1 exist.” 2 IV. Failure to State a Claim 3 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a 4 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 5 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 6 371-72, 377 (1976). “A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that 7 an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of [her] civil rights.” Barren v. 8 Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). 9 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 10 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 11 v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

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

Related

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
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)
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)
United States v. Anthony Bruce Cannon
15 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Gotbaum Ex Rel. Gotbaum v. City of Phoenix
617 F. Supp. 2d 878 (D. Arizona, 2008)
Braillard v. Maricopa County
232 P.3d 1263 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2010)
Manuel Ortega Melendres v. Joseph Arpaio
784 F.3d 1254 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Hearns v. Terhune
413 F.3d 1036 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Sadoski v. Mosley
435 F.3d 1076 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Jonathon Castro v. County of Los Angeles
833 F.3d 1060 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gobea v. Penzone, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gobea-v-penzone-azd-2024.