Hayes v. Shepherd

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJune 28, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-00511
StatusUnknown

This text of Hayes v. Shepherd (Hayes v. Shepherd) 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
Hayes v. Shepherd, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Opinion

1 WO SC 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Raymond Junior Hayes, No. CV 21-00511-PHX-MTL (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 J. Adam Shepherd, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Raymond Junior Hayes, who is confined in the Gila County Jail in Payson, 16 Arizona, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) 17 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 5). The Court will dismiss the 18 Complaint with leave to 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). 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed 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 his three-count Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims for denial of constitutionally 5 adequate medical care and threat to safety. Plaintiff sues Gila County Sheriff J. Adam 6 Shepherd, Deputy Major Justin Solberg, and Healthcare Coordinator Penni Padgett. 7 Plaintiff seeks compensatory relief. 8 In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that since January 16, 2021, while Plaintiff was a 9 pretrial detainee, Defendants were responsible for protecting him from exposure to 10 COVID-19. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to protect him or to follow COVID-19 11 guidelines. He alleges neither staff nor detainees were tested when they entered the Jail 12 and Defendants failed to provide personal protective equipment (PPE). He alleges “we” 13 were denied many times. He also alleges that he was never quarantined and even those 14 quarantined were only quarantined for seven days. Further, he alleges big fans circulated 15 air throughout the Jail and staff were allowed to go from wing to wing, potentially exposing 16 the uninfected to COVID-19. As his injury, Plaintiff alleges that he contracted COVID-19 17 twice, lost his senses of taste and smell, and has a hard time taking deep breaths. 18 In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to enforce requirements that 19 masks be worn when a detainee left his housing unit to go to court, recreation, or legal 20 visits—namely, anywhere where a detainee could come into contact with new arrivals at 21 the Jail and/or COVID-19 positive persons. Plaintiff claims he was exposed to infected 22 new arrivals without being tested or quarantined, and PPE was not provided to him. He 23 alleges that a positive COVID-19 detainee, Raymond Hayes, i.e., himself, was housed with 24 him and infected everyone “including myself.”1 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants ignored 25 complaints from detainees concerning their symptoms and failed to quarantine infected 26 27

28 1 Although unclear, apparently Plaintiff copied someone else’s complaint without modifying the allegations referring to himself. 1 detainees, officers, and kitchen staff.2 He also claims that no one was “ever” tested or 2 quarantined, contrary to other allegations in the Complaint. He alleges kitchen staff with 3 COVID-19 were allowed to handle uncovered food trays, which were transported through 4 areas where detainees had COVID-19, before being delivered to uninfected detainees. As 5 his injury, Plaintiff alleges mental anguish, the loss of smell and taste, and difficulty taking 6 deep breaths. 7 In Count III, Plaintiff alleges that he tested positive for COVID-19 in late January 8 and he was placed in a cell and wing with other COVID-19 positive detainees. He claims 9 that he was never retested to see if he tested negative. Plaintiff was later placed with 10 detainees, some of whom had COVID-19. Within days, all the detainees had the virus. 11 Plaintiff still cannot taste or smell, lacks energy, and suffers from shortness of breath.

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)
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1989)
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)
United States v. Anthony Bruce Cannon
15 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Kingsley v. Hendrickson
576 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court, 2015)
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)
Hayes v. Shepherd, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-shepherd-azd-2021.