Gwen v. Core Civic

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedFebruary 16, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-02150
StatusUnknown

This text of Gwen v. Core Civic (Gwen v. Core Civic) 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
Gwen v. Core Civic, (D. Ariz. 2022).

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Gerald Vaughn Gwen, No. CV 21-02150-PHX-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 CoreCivic, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 16 Plaintiff Gerald Vaughn Gwen, who is confined in CoreCivic’s Red Rock 17 Correctional Center, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983 (Doc. 1). After the Court gave him an opportunity to either file an Application to 19 Proceed In Forma Pauperis or pay the filing and administrative fees, he filed an Application 20 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed 21 and will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 22 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 23 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 24 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $33.14. The remainder 26 of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 27 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 2 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 3 II. 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 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4 requires, in part, that “[a]ll complaints . . . by 11 incarcerated persons must be signed and legibly written or typewritten on forms approved 12 by the Court and in accordance with the instructions provided with the forms.” The court- 13 approved form Complaint is six pages long and both the form Complaint and 14 accompanying instructions permit an inmate to attach “no more than fifteen additional 15 pages” of standard letter-sized paper. (Emphasis in original.) A document that complies 16 with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4, therefore, would be no longer than 21 pages. 17 In addition, Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a “short 18 and plain statement of the claim.” Rule 8(d)(1) states that “[e]ach allegation must be 19 simple, concise, and direct.” A complaint having the factual elements of a cause of action 20 scattered throughout the complaint and not organized into a “short and plain statement of 21 the claim” may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a). See Sparling v. Hoffman 22 Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 23 (9th Cir. 1996). 24 First, Plaintiff’s three-count, 34-page Complaint greatly exceeds the page limitation 25 and therefore fails to comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4. Second, Plaintiff’s 26 Complaint does not comply with Rule 8. In addition to his three counts, Plaintiff has 27 included a three-page section titled “Claims for Relief” and a fifteen-page section titled 28 “Appendic[]es of Relevant Facts.” The Court will not comb through the various sections 1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint to determine which allegations support each claim. See Ferrell v. 2 Durbin, 311 F. App’x 253, 259 (11th Cir. 2009) (“Neither this Court nor the district court 3 is required to parse the complaint searching for allegations . . . that could conceivably form 4 the basis of each of Appellants’ claims.”); Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 5 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[J]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.” 6 (quoting United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955 (7th Cir. 1991))). Therefore, the Court will 7 dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to comply with Rule 3.4 of the 8 Local Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9 III. Leave to Amend 10 Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first amended complaint to cure the 11 deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form 12 to use for filing a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, 13 the Court may strike the amended complaint and dismiss this action without further notice 14 to Plaintiff. 15 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First 16 Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 17 entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 18 Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 19 A first amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 20 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 21 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat the original Complaint 22 as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the 23 original Complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without prejudice 24 is waived if it is not alleged in a first amended complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 25 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 26 If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements 27 telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name 28 of the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to 1 do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of 2 Plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of 3 that Defendant’s conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 4 Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he names as a Defendant. If 5 Plaintiff fails to affirmatively link the conduct of each named Defendant with the specific 6 injury suffered by Plaintiff, the allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for 7 failure to state a claim. Conclusory allegations that a Defendant or group of 8 Defendants has violated a constitutional right are not acceptable and will be 9 dismissed. 10 IV. Warnings 11 A.

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

Related

Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
United States v. Rodriguez-Castillo
350 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2003)
United States v. James C. Dunkel
927 F.2d 955 (Seventh Circuit, 1991)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Johnnie T. Warren
25 F.3d 890 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Richard Ferrell v. Harold E. Wolfe, Jr.
311 F. App'x 253 (Eleventh Circuit, 2009)
McHenry v. Renne
84 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
McMahon v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.
896 F.2d 17 (Second Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gwen v. Core Civic, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gwen-v-core-civic-azd-2022.