Harper v. Skinner

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMay 31, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-00894
StatusUnknown

This text of Harper v. Skinner (Harper v. Skinner) 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
Harper v. Skinner, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 ASH 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Angela Harper, No. CV-24-00894-PHX-JAT (ASB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Russell Skinner, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Angela Harper, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, has filed a pro 16 se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to 17 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to 18 amend. 19 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 20 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 23 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 24 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 26 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 27 II. 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 claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 4 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 5 such 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 pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 23 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 24 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 25 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 26 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 27 facts, a pro se 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 Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because it may 2 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 3 III. Complaint 4 In her three-count Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants: Maricopa County; Maricopa 5 County Sheriff Russell Skinner; Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Member Clint 6 Hickman; and Correctional Health Services Director Dawn Noggle. Plaintiff alleges 7 claims related to black mold (Count One), the “standards of care” (Count Two), and the 8 “misappropriated u8se of funds” (Count Three), for which she seeks monetary relief. 9 IV. Failure to State a Claim 10 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 11 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 12 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 13 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 14 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury 15 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link 16 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 17 72, 377 (1976). 18 Here, however, Plaintiff makes no allegations against any named Defendant. 19 Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted, and the 20 Complaint will thus be dismissed. 21 V. Leave to Amend 22 Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first amended complaint to cure the 23 deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form 24 to use for filing a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, 25 the Court may strike the amended complaint and dismiss this action without further notice 26 to Plaintiff. 27 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First 28 Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 1 entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 2 Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 3 A first amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 4 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 5 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat the original Complaint 6 as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the 7 original Complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without prejudice 8 is waived if it is not alleged in a first amended complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 9 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

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)
Bell v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
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)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Hearns v. Terhune
413 F.3d 1036 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Jonathon Castro v. County of Los Angeles
833 F.3d 1060 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Mary Gordon v. County of Orange
888 F.3d 1118 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)
Alvarez-Machain v. United States
107 F.3d 696 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Harper v. Skinner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-skinner-azd-2024.