Hess v. Penzone

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided May 1, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-00594·Unknown

Opinion

1 wo JL 2 3 4 5 8 9 Aaron Michael Hess, No. CV 20-00594-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Paul Penzone, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On March 23, 2020, Plaintiff Aaron Michael Hess, who is confined in a Maricopa 16 County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an 17 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a March 26, 2020 Order, the Court granted 18 the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to 19 state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the 20 deficiencies identified in the Order. 21 On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7). The Court 22 will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 23 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 24 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 25 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 27 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 28 1 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 2 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 3 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 4 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 5 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 6 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 7 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 8 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 9 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 10 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 11 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 12 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 13 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 14 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 15 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 16 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 17 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 18 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 19 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 20 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 21 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 22 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 23 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 24 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 25 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 26 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 27 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 28 to amend. 1 II. First Amended Complaint1 2 In his one-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues two Maricopa County 3 Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) mailroom employees, both identified as John Doe. Plaintiff 4 alleges that between June 5 and August 13, 2019, while he was in custody at the 4th Avenue 5 Jail, he received several pieces of mail from the investigator assigned to act as a liaison 6 between Plaintiff and his defense attorney. Plaintiff asserts that in this capacity, the 7 investigator was acting as an officer of the Court. Plaintiff claims that on five occasions, 8 his mail, which was clearly marked “legal mail,” was opened outside his presence and then 9 taped closed and delivered to him as “unopened legal mail.” Plaintiff alleges that on one 10 occasion, mail that was postmarked June 5 had a sticky note attached to the front of the 11 envelope from Defendant John Doe at the Central Mailroom at Lower Buckeye Jail, 12 instructing Defendant John Doe at the 4th Avenue Jail to open and “make sure mail was 13 [legal] matter,” which Plaintiff claims was done for that piece of mail, as well as four other 14 pieces of mail. Plaintiff asserts this has caused “a lot of undue stress” because he is pro 15 per and is facing 25 years in prison. He claims he has suffered “tremendous” mental 16 trauma, loss of sleep, weight loss, and loss of appetite, and he now needs to take 17 psychotropic medication. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief. 18 III. Failure to State a Claim 19 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 20 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 21 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 22 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 23 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury 24 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link

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

Hess v. Penzone, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Hess v. Penzone (Hess v. Penzone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wolff v. McDonnell
418 U.S. 539 (Supreme Court, 1974)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
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)
Clyde Stevenson v. Sue Koskey
877 F.2d 1435 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
Carol Van Strum Paul E. Merrell v. John C. Lawn
940 F.2d 406 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)
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)
Scott Nordstrom v. Charles Ryan
762 F.3d 903 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Jones v. Brown
461 F.3d 353 (Third Circuit, 2006)
Nick Mangiaracina v. Paul Penzone
849 F.3d 1191 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Smith v. Maschner
899 F.2d 940 (Tenth Circuit, 1990)
Lemon v. Dugger
931 F.2d 1465 (Eleventh Circuit, 1991)