Goss v. Shepherd

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided April 20, 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 14 Defendants.

15 16 On February 8, 2021, Kenneth James Myers and 40 others, who are all or were 17 confined in the Gila County Jail in Globe, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a February 16, 2021 Order, the Court dismissed the action 19 and directed the Clerk of Court to open a new separate action on behalf of each Plaintiff. 20 The Court gave each Plaintiff 30 days to (1) pay the filing and administrative fees for his 21 individual case or file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a certified six- 22 month trust account statement and (2) file an amended 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 and an Application to Proceed 25 In Forma Pauperis. In a March 18, 2021 Order, the Court granted the Application to 26 Proceed and dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend because Plaintiff 27 had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended 28 complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 1 On April 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 9). The Court 2 will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 3 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 4 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 5 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 7 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 8 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 9 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 10 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 11 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 12 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 13 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 14 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 15 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 16 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 17 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 18 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 19 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 21 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 22 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 23 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 24 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 25 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 26 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 27 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 28 1 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 2 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 3 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 4 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 5 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 6 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 7 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 8 to amend. 9 II. Second Amended Complaint 10 In his three-count Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Gila County Sheriff 11 J. Adam Shepherd, Commander Justin Solberg, and Head Health Care Coordinator Penni 12 Padgett. Plaintiff asserts claims related to his conditions of confinement. He seeks 13 monetary relief in the amount of $50,000,000. 14 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that from May 19, 2020 to the present, Defendant 15 Shepherd has been “faced with” preventing the spread of COVID-19 in Plaintiff’s housing 16 unit at the Gila County Jail. Plaintiff asserts that because “[t]he general procedure and 17 precautions were all over the news,” Defendant Shepherd was thereby “informed of the 18 minimum requirements for the prevention.” Plaintiff claims Defendant Shepherd did not 19 institute mandates for staff or detainees to wear masks or other personal protective 20 equipment (PPE), “as was the global requirement.” Plaintiff alleges Defendant Shepherd 21 also did not mandate testing for detainees or the “standard” 14-day quarantine. Plaintiff 22 contends that although these protocols were “known to” Defendant Shepherd, the protocols 23 were “ignored.” Plaintiff asserts that no mandates were “passed down from” Defendant 24 Shepherd to use any sanitizing products when cleaning the housing units. Plaintiff claims 25 that because of Defendant Shepherd’s inaction, he contracted COVID-19, lost his sense of 26 taste and smell, and has difficulty breathing. 27 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that from May 19, 2020 to the present, Defendant 28 Solberg was the Gila County Jail Commander and was “in control[] of decisions” made 1 regarding the day-to-day operations of the Jail. Plaintiff asserts that although “mandates 2 were bro[a]dcast on national news,” Defendant Solberg did not quarantine detainees upon 3 entry into the Jail. Between August 2020 and January 2021, Plaintiff requested PPE, but 4 Defendant Solberg denied his requests. During that time, there was no mandate for masks. 5 In January 2021, Plaintiff became very ill, and he asked Defendant Solberg to be tested for 6 COVID-19, quarantined, and given PPE. Plaintiff’s requests were denied until January 24, 7 2021, when Plaintiff tested positive for COVID-19. Despite this, Defendant Solberg 8 “decided that moving [Plaintiff] away from non-positive” detainees was not warranted. 9 Defendant Solberg also allowed Plaintiff’s food trays to travel through “infected areas” 10 and then to Plaintiff. 11 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that from May 19, 2020 through the present, 12 Defendant Padgett, as the Head Nurse and Health Care Director, was responsible for 13 decisions concerning detainees’ health and safety. Plaintiff asserts Defendant Padgett 14 ignored the nationwide mandate to practice social distancing, wear masks, and quarantine 15 to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Defendant Padgett also ignored “those needs” when 16 she refused to provide Plaintiff a mask, test him for COVID-19, or vaccinate him, despite 17 his “many requests.” 18 III.

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)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)