Goss v. Shepherd

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided March 18, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-00234·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO JL 2 3 4 5 8 9 Brett William Goss, No. CV 21-00234-PHX-MTL (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 J. Adam Shepherd, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On February 8, 2021, Kenneth James Myers and 40 other prisoners, who are 16 apparently all confined in the Gila County Jail in Globe, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights 17 Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a February 16, 2021 Order, the Court 18 dismissed the action and directed the Clerk of Court to open a new separate action on behalf 19 of each Plaintiff. The Court gave each Plaintiff 30 days to (1) pay the filing and 20 administrative fees for his individual case or file an Application to Proceed In Forma 21 Pauperis and a certified six-month trust account statement and (2) file an amended 22 complaint in his individual case. 23 This case was opened for Plaintiff Brett William Goss (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”). On 24 March 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 4) and an Application to 25 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 5). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed and 26 dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 2 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 3 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $77.33. Id. The 5 remainder of the statutory filing fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the 6 previous month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the 7 account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order 8 requiring the appropriate government agency to collect and forward the fees according to 9 the statutory formula. 10 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 11 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 12 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 13 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 14 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 15 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 16 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 17 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 18 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 19 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 20 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 21 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 22 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 23 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 24 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 25 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 26 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 27 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 28 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 1 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 2 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 3 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 4 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 5 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 6 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 7 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 8 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 9 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 10 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 11 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 12 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 13 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 14 to amend. 15 III. First Amended Complaint 16 In his three-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Gila County Sheriff J. 17 Adam Shepherd, Jail Commander Justin Solberg, and Healthcare Coordinator Penni 18 Padgett. Plaintiff asserts claims relating to his conditions of confinement. He seeks 19 monetary relief in the amount of $50,000,000. 20 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that from May 19, 2020 to the present, while he has 21 been housed at the Gila County Jail, Defendants Shepherd, Solberg, and Padgett were 22 “given the task” of protecting Plaintiff and preventing the spread of COVID-19 at the Jail. 23 Plaintiff asserts that “preventing and planning was not done[,] in deliberate indifference.” 24 Plaintiff claims that he and all other detainees admitted to the Gila County Jail were not 25 tested for COVID-19 upon entry. Plaintiff alleges he was not tested until January 27, 2021, 26 long after the pandemic began. Plaintiff asserts the “standard” at the Jail was to take a 27 detainee’s temperature upon entry and place him in a seven-day quarantine, in an 28 uncontrolled area known as “South.” Plaintiff claims no personal protective equipment 1 (PPE) was ever issued or “made standard.” Plaintiff alleges he “made many requests to all 2 levels of staff only to be continually denied” masks and cleaning products. As his injury, 3 Plaintiff claims he contracted COVID-19 and as a result, he has permanently lost his sense 4 of smell and taste and has difficulty breathing. 5 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Shepherd, Solberg, and Padgett 6 engaged in deliberate indifference by allowing staff members to freely move from the 7 quarantine area into Plaintiff’s housing area without masks or other PPE. Plaintiff asserts 8 that when he asked for the “problem to be fixed,” he was ignored. Plaintiff was not required 9 to wear a mask to go to court, where he sat near detainees who were still in quarantine and 10 who were not wearing masks or other PPE. Plaintiff claims a detainee from Maricopa 11 County, who had been confirmed to have COVID-19, was admitted to the Gila County Jail 12 and kept in “South.” Bars are the only separation between “South” and “North,” and in 13 between, a large industrial fan blows air from South into Plaintiff’s housing area in North. 14 Kitchen staff, including detainees, work with food without wearing face masks and were 15 forced to work while they were sick with COVID-19.

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

Goss v. Shepherd, (D. Ariz. 2021).

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

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)
Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell
981 F.2d 1062 (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)