Higuera v. Glendale, City of

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided April 15, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-05554·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO MH 2 3 4 5 8 9 Derek Anthony Higuera, No. CV 19-05554-PHX-MTL (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 City of Glendale, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On November 1, 2019, Plaintiff Derek Anthony Higuera, who is confined in a 16 Maricopa County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 17 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On November 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a 18 Motion for Legal Supplies and a Motion to Supplement the Complaint. On November 15, 19 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. On December 13, 2019, he 20 filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint. In a January 29, 2020 Order, the Court granted 21 the Application to Proceed, granted the Motion to Amend and Motion to Supplement the 22 Complaint in part, and denied without prejudice the Motion for Legal Supplies and Motion 23 for Appointment of Counsel. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended 24 complaint. 25 On February 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 11). On 26 March 9, 2020, he filed a Letter (Doc. 12) addressed to the Clerk of Court. The Court will 27 dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s Letter will be 28 1 granted insofar as this Order contains an update on the status of this case. In all other 2 respects, the Letter will be denied. 3 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 4 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 5 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 7 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 8 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 9 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 10 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 11 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 12 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 13 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 14 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 15 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 16 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 17 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 18 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 19 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 21 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 22 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 23 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 24 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 25 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 26 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 27 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 28 1 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 2 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 3 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 4 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 5 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 6 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 7 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 8 to amend. 9 II. First Amended Complaint 10 In his five-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff purports to assert claims under 11 the Eighth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Federal Food, Drug, and 12 Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 301-399i. He names as Defendants the City of 13 Glendale, Unknown Detention Officers, and Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone. 14 Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages. 15 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that his rights under the FDCA have been violated 16 because he has been forced to consume foods containing trans fats in the Glendale City 17 Jail. According to Plaintiff, he was sentenced to complete a jail term in August 2019. After 18 arriving at the Glendale City Jail to serve his sentence, Plaintiff noticed that he was being 19 served prepackaged burritos containing trans fats. He advised “them” about the Food and 20 Drug Administration (FDA) ban on trans fats in prepackaged foods, and “[t]hey” said they 21 would look into it. (Doc. 1 at 3.)1 Plaintiff took this statement to mean that they would 22 “verify it and comply.” (Id.) When Plaintiff returned to the Glendale City Jail in 23 connection with another criminal case, he discovered that frozen burritos containing trans 24 fats were still being served. According to Plaintiff, these frozen burritos are the only meal 25 provided at the jail. As a result, Plaintiff is forced to consume chemicals “known to cause 26 heart disease [and] heart failure per the FDA” three times a day, seven days a week. (Id.) 27

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

Higuera v. Glendale, City of, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Higuera v. Glendale, City of (Higuera v. Glendale, City of) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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)
Bell v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee
531 U.S. 341 (Supreme Court, 2001)
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)
Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell
981 F.2d 1062 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Russell Marcilis, II v. Township of Redford
693 F.3d 589 (Sixth Circuit, 2012)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Lanman v. Hinson
529 F.3d 673 (Sixth Circuit, 2008)