Herrera v. Unknown Parties

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedOctober 2, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-01259
StatusUnknown

This text of Herrera v. Unknown Parties (Herrera v. Unknown Parties) 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
Herrera v. Unknown Parties, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 KM 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Victor Giovanni Herrera, No. CV-24-01259-PHX-JAT (ASB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Correctional Health of Lower Buckeye Jail, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 Self-represented Plaintiff Victor Giovanni Herrera, who is confined in a Maricopa 16 County Jail, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and 17 an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). 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 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 2 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 3 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 5 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 7 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 8 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 9 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 10 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 11 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 12 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 13 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 14 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 15 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 16 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 17 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 18 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 19 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 20 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 21 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 22 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 23 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 24 must “continue to construe [self-represented litigant’s] filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 25 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a self-represented prisoner] 26 ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. 27 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 28 . . . . 1 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 2 facts, a self-represented litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before 3 dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 4 banc). The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because 5 it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 In his four-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Correctional Health Medical Staff at the 8 Lower Buckeye, Watkins, and Towers Jails and seeks injunctive relief. 9 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges he is being denied medications prescribed by his 10 doctor and psychiatrist. Plaintiff asked to see his doctor through a video visit but alleges 11 “they didn’t even schedule an appointment or let [Plaintiff] see him in person.” Plaintiff 12 requested methadone or suboxone to help with his addiction but was denied. He claims 13 “the doctor . . . kept denying [him] service intentionally, because of some prejudice, while 14 other prisoners were receiving that medication from that specific doctor.” Plaintiff alleges 15 he suffers “seizures, convulsions, allergic reaction[s] to their medication, panic attacks, 16 depression, [and] emotional trauma.” 17 In Count Two, Plaintiff claims “the food they give to us is cruel and unusual, we 18 don’t even get lunch.” He alleges breakfast is a sack lunch with one small packet of jelly, 19 bread, a small bag of peanut butter, one apple or orange, and one small milk. Dinner “isn’t 20 even fresh or flavored, the portions are not even sufficient for human consumption.” 21 Plaintiff also claims buildings are not up to code and there is asbestos. Plaintiff alleges he 22 suffers starvation, malnutrition, emotional and physical trauma, lung damage, and kidney 23 damage. 24 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges he has asked to be moved to the Watkins Jail 25 multiple times “because of the asbestos and dangerous criminals surrounding [him] and 26 constantly trying to hurt [him].” 27 In Count Four, Plaintiff contends he is prescribed Adderall, to be taken at 8:00 am 28 and 12:00 pm; Oxycodone to be taken three times per day; Zoloft to be taken once daily; 1 and Xanax to be taken twice daily at 8:00 am and 10:00 pm. According to Plaintiff, medical 2 staff does not pass out medications until 12:00 pm to 2:00 pm, and this threatens his safety. 3 Plaintiff contends that “when [he is] not taking oxycodone for [his] pain [he] recently fell 4 down a flight [of] stairs and injured [his] neck.” He also states he would “switch every 5 other week to [his] Xanax for [his] panic disorders.” 6 IV. Failure to State a Claim 7 To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 8 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 9 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 10 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 11 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)).

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)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
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)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Russell Marcilis, II v. Township of Redford
693 F.3d 589 (Sixth Circuit, 2012)
Lanman v. Hinson
529 F.3d 673 (Sixth Circuit, 2008)
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)
Myers v. United States
17 F.3d 890 (Sixth Circuit, 1994)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Herrera v. Unknown Parties, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrera-v-unknown-parties-azd-2024.