Gutierrez-Valencia 091102 v. Ryan

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedApril 8, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-00376
StatusUnknown

This text of Gutierrez-Valencia 091102 v. Ryan (Gutierrez-Valencia 091102 v. Ryan) 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
Gutierrez-Valencia 091102 v. Ryan, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Luis Gutierrez-Valencia, No. CV 20-00376-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Charles L. Ryan, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff Luis Gutierrez-Valencia, who is confined in the 16 Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman in Florence, Arizona, filed a “Request for 17 Acceptance of Non-Authorized Forms and/or Complaint and/or Waivers Requests for 18 Plaintiff,” lodged a pro se civil rights Complaint, and filed an Application to Proceed In 19 Forma Pauperis. In a February 26, 2020 Order, the Court denied the Request for 20 Acceptance, granted the Application to Proceed, and gave Plaintiff thirty days to file a 21 complaint on a court-approved form. 22 On March 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Complaint (Doc. 9). The Court will dismiss 23 the Complaint with leave to amend. 24 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 25 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 26 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 27 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 28 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 1 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 2 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 3 Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a “short and plain 4 statement of the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 8(d)(1) states that “[e]ach allegation 5 must be simple, concise, and direct.” A complaint having the factual elements of a cause 6 of action scattered throughout the complaint and not organized into a “short and plain 7 statement of the claim” may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a). See Sparling v. 8 Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 9 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996). It is not the responsibility of the Court to review a rambling 10 narrative in an attempt to determine the number and nature of a plaintiff’s claims. 11 Plaintiff’s four-count Complaint violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 12 Procedure. Plaintiff presents a rambling and disjointed collection of facts dispersed 13 throughout the four counts and a “Preliminary Statement.” Because the Court cannot 14 meaningfully review Plaintiff’s Complaint, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court 15 will dismiss it with leave to amend. 16 II. Leave to Amend 17 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to 18 comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may 19 submit a first amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of 20 Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first amended complaint. 21 If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the amended 22 complaint and dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 23 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First 24 Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 25 entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 26 Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 27 A first amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 28 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat the original Complaint 2 as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the 3 original Complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without prejudice 4 is waived if it is not alleged in a first amended complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 5 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 6 If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements 7 telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name 8 of the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to 9 do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of 10 Plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of 11 that Defendant’s conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 12 Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he names as a Defendant. If 13 Plaintiff fails to affirmatively link the conduct of each named Defendant with the specific 14 injury suffered by Plaintiff, the allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for 15 failure to state a claim. Conclusory allegations that a Defendant or group of 16 Defendants has violated a constitutional right are not acceptable and will be 17 dismissed. 18 Plaintiff should take note that a suit against a defendant in his or her individual 19 capacity seeks to impose personal liability upon the official. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 20 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985). For a person to be liable in his or her individual capacity, “[a] 21 plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that the individual was 22 personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 23 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and 24 § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the 25 official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 26 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). 27 Plaintiff should also take note that a plaintiff cannot maintain a lawsuit for damages 28 against Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) employees in their official capacities. 1 See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 27 (1991) (“State officials sued for damages in their official 2 capacity are not ‘persons’ for purposes of the suit because they assume the identity of the 3 government that employs them.”); see also Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 4 1320, 1327 (9th Cir. 1991). A plaintiff may maintain a lawsuit against ADC employees in 5 their official capacity for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief, see Coalition to 6 Defend Affirmative Action v. Brown, 674 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2012), but this 7 exception is intended to prevent continuing violations of federal law and “does not permit 8 judgments against state officers declaring that they violated federal law in the past.” Puerto 9 Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.,

Related

Watts v. Lindsey's Heirs
20 U.S. 158 (Supreme Court, 1822)
Ross v. Doe on the Demise of Barland
26 U.S. 655 (Supreme Court, 1828)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Hafer v. Melo
502 U.S. 21 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Powell v. Alexander
391 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2004)
Eric Sanchez v. Duane R. Vild
891 F.2d 240 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Brown
674 F.3d 1128 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Hindes v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
137 F.3d 148 (Third Circuit, 1998)
Laurie Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc.
698 F.3d 1128 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Clement v. California Department of Corrections
220 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (N.D. California, 2002)
Robinson v. Missouri Pacific Railroad
16 F.3d 1083 (Tenth Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gutierrez-Valencia 091102 v. Ryan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gutierrez-valencia-091102-v-ryan-azd-2020.