Hall 353631 v. Arizona State Prison

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMarch 4, 2024
Docket4:23-cv-00353
StatusUnknown

This text of Hall 353631 v. Arizona State Prison (Hall 353631 v. Arizona State Prison) 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
Hall 353631 v. Arizona State Prison, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 WO KM 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Anthony Charles Hall, No. CV-23-00353-TUC-SHR 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Arizona State Prison, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Self-represented Plaintiff Anthony Charles Hall, who is confined in the Arizona 16 State Prison Complex-Douglas, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court denied the 18 Application to Proceed and Plaintiff subsequently filed a completed Application to Proceed 19 (Doc. 6). On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8), Motion 20 for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 9), and Motion for Case Status Request (Doc. 10). The 21 Court will grant the Application to proceed, dismiss the First Amended Complaint with 22 leave to amend, and deny the Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Motion for Case 23 Status Request. 24 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 25 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 28 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 1 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 3 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 4 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 5 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 6 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 7 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 8 has raised legally frivolous or malicious claims, failed to state a claim upon which relief 9 may be granted, or sought monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 10 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 11 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 12 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 13 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 14 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 15 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 16 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 17 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 18 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’“ Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 19 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 20 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 21 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 22 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 23 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 24 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 25 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 26 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 27 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 28 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 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 a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a 4 pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the 5 action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127–29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff’s 6 First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 7 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 8 III. First Amended Complaint 9 In his three-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues the Arizona State Prison 10 and Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) for monetary damages and injunctive relief. 11 In Count One, Plaintiff claims ADC staff has “engaged in malicious interference in 12 legal access and access to courts.” Plaintiff claims an attorney sent him DVDs with 13 evidence and these DVDs arrived at the prison in October 2022, but mailroom staff 14 incorrectly dated them as arriving on February 10, 2023. He claims when he requested to 15 view materials, he was told “there was none” and “evidence submission for that case 16 ended” on February 10, 2023. He contends “this proves malicious, intentional denial of 17 legal access.” He also claims staff “stamped legal mail over [his] outgoing address” and 18 “filed a motion in [his] case posing as [him]. . ., to keep [him] quiet [and from] pursuing 19 justice.” 20 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges he sent a “petition for review regarding [his] direct 21 appeal” but it was never received, and other mail he sent to the courts was returned. He 22 claims an attorney wrote to him and Plaintiff used the self-addressed stamped envelope to 23 send back signed paperwork. After several months, Plaintiff asked to call the attorney. He 24 alleges “CO III Leal fake called [the attorney who said] he is not [Plaintiff’s] attorney and 25 he does not want to talk to [Plaintiff].” Plaintiff states this is a lie and ADC staff stalk him 26 and censor his mail. Plaintiff contends ADC staff are preventing his legal mail “from going 27 out,” “stuck [return to sender] stickers on [the mail], making it look like the courts sent 28 1 them back,” and kept Plaintiff’s reply to an attorney “from going out” and are trying to 2 deny him communication with his attorney. 3 In Count Three, Plaintiff claims he is being denied access to the courts and ADC 4 staff attempted to “throw [him] in a medical hole.” He alleges “admin probably wants to 5 steal my case files, send CO IIs floor guards for this.” 6 IV. Failure to State a Claim 7 The ADC is not a proper Defendant. Under the Eleventh Amendment to the 8 Constitution of the United States, a state or state agency may not be sued in federal court 9 without its consent. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); 10 Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, “a state is not a ‘person’ 11 for purposes of section 1983.

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)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1984)
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)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Russell Marcilis, II v. Township of Redford
693 F.3d 589 (Sixth Circuit, 2012)
Lanman v. Hinson
529 F.3d 673 (Sixth Circuit, 2008)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Taylor v. List
880 F.2d 1040 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc.
931 F.2d 1320 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hall 353631 v. Arizona State Prison, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-353631-v-arizona-state-prison-azd-2024.