Gwen v. Masher

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided September 8, 2020·No. 3:20-cv-08225·Unknown

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 20-08225-PCT-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Scott Mascher, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On August 27, 2020, Plaintiff Gerald Vaughn Gwen, who is confined in the Yavapai 16 County Detention Center, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 §§ 1983 and 1985 (Doc. 1), a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary 18 Injunction (Doc. 2), a Declaration to TRO Application, and a Motion for Expedited 19 Processing (Doc. 5). The Court will give Plaintiff thirty days to pay the filing and 20 administrative fees or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, dismiss 21 the Complaint with leave to amend, deny without prejudice the Motion for a Temporary 22 Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, and deny as moot the Motion for Expedited 23 Processing. 24 I. Payment of Filing Fee 25 When bringing an action, a prisoner must either pay the $350.00 filing fee and a 26 $50.00 administrative fee in a lump sum or, if granted the privilege of proceeding in forma 27 pauperis, pay the $350.00 filing fee incrementally as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 28 An application to proceed in forma pauperis requires an affidavit of indigence and a 1 certified copy of the inmate’s trust account statement for the six months preceding the filing 2 of the Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). An inmate must submit statements from each 3 institution where he was confined during the six-month period. Id. To assist prisoners in 4 meeting these requirements, the Court requires use of a form application. LRCiv 3.4. 5 If a prisoner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will assess an 6 initial partial filing fee of 20% of either the average monthly deposits or the average 7 monthly balance in Plaintiff’s account, whichever is greater. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). An 8 initial partial filing fee will only be collected when funds exist. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). 9 The balance of the $350.00 filing fee will be collected in monthly payments of 20% of the 10 preceding month’s income credited to an inmate’s account, each time the amount in the 11 account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 12 Because Plaintiff has not paid the $400.00 filing and administrative fees or filed an 13 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Plaintiff will be permitted thirty days from the 14 filing date of this Order to submit a properly executed and certified Application to Proceed 15 In Forma Pauperis, using the form included with this Order, or pay the $400.00 filing and 16 administrative fees. 17 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 18 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 19 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 21 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 22 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 23 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 24 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4 requires in part that “[a]ll complaints and 25 applications to proceed in forma pauperis by incarcerated persons shall be signed and 26 legibly written or typewritten on forms approved by the Court and in accordance with the 27 instructions provided with the forms.” The court-approved form Complaint is six pages 28 long and both the form Complaint and accompanying instructions permit an inmate to 1 attach “no more than fifteen additional pages” of standard letter-sized paper. (Emphasis 2 in original.) A document that complies with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4, therefore, 3 would be filed on the court-approved form and would be no longer than 21 pages. 4 Plaintiff’s 31-page Complaint is not on a court-approved form as required by Local 5 Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4 and does not meet the page requirement. Plaintiff’s Complaint 6 will therefore be dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend, in order for Plaintiff to 7 file an amended complaint on a court-approved form. 8 III. Leave to Amend 9 Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first amended complaint on a court-approved 10 form. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first 11 amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike 12 the amended complaint and dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 13 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First 14 Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 15 entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 16 Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 17 A first amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 18 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 19 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat the original Complaint 20 as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the 21 original Complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without prejudice 22 is waived if it is not alleged in a first amended complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 23 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 24 If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he should be aware of the following: 25 A. Vague and Conclusory Allegations 26 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 27 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 28 v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal interpretation of a 1 civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 2 pled. Id. 3 B. Factual Specificity 4 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a 5 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 6 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 7 371-72, 377 (1976). A lack of factual specificity as to what any particular defendant did 8 or failed to do is insufficient. See Marcilis v. Twp. of Redford, 693 F.3d 589, 596 (6th Cir. 9 2012) (upholding dismissal of Bivens complaint that referred to all defendants “generally 10 and categorically” because the plaintiff had failed to “‘allege, with particularity, facts that 11 demonstrate what each defendant did to violate the asserted constitutional right.’” (quoting 12 Lanman v. Hinson, 529 F.3d 673, 684 (6th Cir. 2008))); Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 13 1242, 1250 (10th Cir.

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

Gwen v. Masher, (D. Ariz. 2020).

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

Related

McDonald v. Magruder
28 U.S. 470 (Supreme Court, 1830)
Bradley v. Fisher
80 U.S. 335 (Supreme Court, 1872)
Ex Parte Young
209 U.S. 123 (Supreme Court, 1908)
De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. v. United States
325 U.S. 212 (Supreme Court, 1945)
Pierson v. Ray
386 U.S. 547 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Griffin v. Breckenridge
403 U.S. 88 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Preiser v. Rodriguez
411 U.S. 475 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Imbler v. Pachtman
424 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Stump v. Sparkman
435 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Polk County v. Dodson
454 U.S. 312 (Supreme Court, 1981)
Blum v. Yaretsky
457 U.S. 991 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Briscoe v. LaHue
460 U.S. 325 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Wilson v. Garcia
471 U.S. 261 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Kentucky v. Graham
473 U.S. 159 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
491 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Hafer v. Melo
502 U.S. 21 (Supreme Court, 1991)