Hall 353631 v. Arizona State Prison

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided July 12, 2024·No. 4:23-cv-00353·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO KM 2 3 4 5 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 (ASPC)-Douglas and proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a civil 17 rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and subsequently filed a First Amended 18 Complaint. The Court denied the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. On 19 March 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 14). On May 1, 2024, 20 Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Injunction Against Malicious Yard Movements/Retaliation” 21 (Doc. 15). Plaintiff then filed a May 16, 2024 “Motion for Leave to Amend Addition 22 Request” (Doc. 16), a May 24, 2024 Amended Motion for Leave to Amend Request (Doc. 23 17), a June 10, 2024 Motion for Leave to Amend Request (Doc. 18), a July 10, 2024 Motion 24 for Leave to Amend Request (Doc. 19), and a July 11, 2024 Motion for Leave to Amend 25 Request (Doc. 20). The Court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with leave to 26 amend and deny the pending Motions. 27 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 28 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 1 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 3 has raised legally frivolous or malicious claims, failed to state a claim upon which relief 4 may be granted, or sought monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 5 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 6 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 7 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 8 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 9 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 10 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 11 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 12 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 13 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 14 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 15 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 16 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 17 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 18 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 19 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 20 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 21 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 22 must “continue to construe [self-represented litigant’s] filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 23 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a self-represented prisoner] 24 ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. 25 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 26 If the Court determines a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a 27 self-represented litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 28 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127–29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 1 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, but 2 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 3 to amend. 4 II. Second Amended Complaint 5 Plaintiff names the following Defendants in his three-count Second Amended 6 Complaint: the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADC); 7 ADC Director Ryan Thornell; Correctional Officers III Eva Lopez, Ruben Prieto, and 8 Unknown Segura; Correctional Officer II A.A.; ASPC-Yuma Complex Warden J. 9 Mcadorey; ASPC-Yuma Deputy Warden A. Camacho; ASPC-Douglas Deputy Warden M. 10 Yubeta; and ASPC-Douglas Complex Warden Thompson. Plaintiff seeks money damages 11 and injunctive relief. 12 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his First, Fourth, Fifth, 13 Seventh, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by denying him access to 14 evidence in his civil lawsuit against Mohave County Sheriff’s deputies. Plaintiff claims 15 defense counsel in the civil lawsuit sent him DVDs containing Axon chest camera video 16 and audio recordings, but the DVDs were “were taken straight from [his] legal envelope to 17 the property room.” Plaintiff states the last DVD was received at the prison on October 18 11, 2022. Defendant A.A. filled out an “Inmate Property/Contraband/Disposition Tracking 19 Form” regarding the DVD and gave the form to Plaintiff. Plaintiff “noticed immediately 20 [Defendant A.A.] dated the form 02/10/2023[,]” even though he took the DVDs on October 21 11, 2022. 22 According to Plaintiff, there is no “walk-in” law library access at the ASPC-Yuma 23 Dakota Unit and “for months [he] asked anyone [he] could to review the DVD evidence.” 24 He was directed to Defendant Lopez, his CO III. Plaintiff asked Defendant Lopez in person 25 and via letters on his tablet for access to the DVDs. He alleges Lopez ignored him. Plaintiff 26 also asked Defendant Prieto, who “kept saying they have no DVDs.” 27 Plaintiff states the defense attorney emailed both Defendants Lopez and Prieto. 28 Plaintiff requested the DVDs from Defendant Prieto multiple times. Prieto said “he [was] 1 checking Lewis/Morey Unit for the DVDs,” but “turns out, the date for evidence 2 submission ended around 2-6-2023[,] so this is not [only] negligence.” Plaintiff asserts 3 “this is a combination of full denial of fair legal access and possible negligence done to 4 [him], maliciously, by the staff.” 5 Plaintiff was then moved to ASPC-Douglas where he asked property staff to have 6 the DVDs sent from ASPC-Yuma. He states, after two weeks, he was able to view the 7 DVDs. Plaintiff claims the evidence was kept from him because it was “mostly fake Axon 8 chest cam evidence, and a fake 911 call recording,” which he “would have been able to 9 defend against.” Plaintiff states he has a left leg tattoo the person in the video does not 10 have. Plaintiff claims he was “purposefully denied this legal access, thus [he] was denied 11 disclosure evidence in a federal civil rights lawsuit.” 12 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges he was denied access to the courts in violation of 13 his First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. 14 Plaintiff states he was moved to the ASPC-Douglas Mohave Unit on April 9, 2023.

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

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

Hall 353631 v. Arizona State Prison (Hall 353631 v. Arizona State Prison) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cramer v. United States
325 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1945)
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)
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 2007)
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)
Frank Marvin Phillips v. Lynn Hust, Library Staff
477 F.3d 1070 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Devose v. Herrington
42 F.3d 470 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)