Hunter 372643 v. Skinner

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedApril 16, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-03427
StatusUnknown

This text of Hunter 372643 v. Skinner (Hunter 372643 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
Hunter 372643 v. Skinner, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Opinion

1 NH 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Amanda Dawn Hunter, No. CV-24-03427-PHX-JAT (MTM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Russell Skinner, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Amanda Dawn Hunter, who was then confined in a Maricopa County Jail, 16 filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an 17 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). After filing, Plaintiff submitted a 18 Notice of Change of Address, indicating she is now confined in the Arizona State Prison 19 Complex-Perryville (Doc. 5). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed and dismiss 20 the Complaint with leave to amend. 21 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 22 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 23 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 25 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 26 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 28 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 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, fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 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 pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 25 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 26 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 27 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 pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 3 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 4 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because it may 5 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 In her three-count Complaint, Plaintiff asserts Fourteenth Amendment claims 8 regarding conditions of confinement at Estrella Jail. Plaintiff names as Defendants former 9 Maricopa County Sheriff Russell Skinner, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Maricopa 10 County Estrella Jail, and Correctional Health Services (hereinafter “CHS”). In her request 11 for relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. 12 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that in 2017, Estrella Jail was “ordered to be 13 condemned due to visible black mold throughout the facility including . . . [in] showers, 14 vents, toilets, sinks, water dispensers, drinking fountains, air vents, drains, pipelines, and 15 . . . the kitchen.” Plaintiff asserts the facility “has stayed overcrowded” and does not 16 provide proper healthcare to inmates. She alleges “mold [has been seen] on breads and 17 fruit served to inmates,” “[rats] have been seen throughout the facility,” and rat feces have 18 been seen in “food and [the] kitchen.” Plaintiff alleges the facility has “been paid to make 19 changes and to fix these issues”, but nothing has been done. 20 Plaintiff claims that she has “developed severe issues” including trouble sleeping, 21 breathing, chest pain, respiratory deterioration, excruciating headaches, intensified vertigo, 22 a bad cough, digestive issues, and psychological and mental torture. 23 In Count Two, Plaintiff claims that Estrella Jail has ignored the infestation of black 24 mold causing detainees long-term physical, mental, and medical conditions. She claims 25 this has caused “black mold poisoning including chest, breathing, and upper respiratory 26 issues.” Plaintiff asserts she has asthma from the black mold poisoning. 27 In Count Three, Plaintiff asserts the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and 28 “appropriate authorities have made incorrect use of funds . . . “to fix such conditions that 1 are illegal [and] unconstitutional,” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997. Plaintiff claims she has 2 been “experiencing increased breathing and digestive issues due to being forced to breathe 3 in black mold” and now “ha[s] asthma due to this.” 4 IV. Failure to State a Claim 5 A. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office 6 The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not a proper defendant because it is a “non- 7 jural entity.” Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Braillard 8 v. Maricopa County, 232 P.3d 1263, 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)). In Arizona, the 9 responsibility of operating jails and caring for prisoners is placed by law upon the sheriff. 10 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 11-441

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

Related

Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
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)
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)
Gotbaum Ex Rel. Gotbaum v. City of Phoenix
617 F. Supp. 2d 878 (D. Arizona, 2008)
Braillard v. Maricopa County
232 P.3d 1263 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2010)
Manuel Ortega Melendres v. Joseph Arpaio
784 F.3d 1254 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Hearns v. Terhune
413 F.3d 1036 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Sadoski v. Mosley
435 F.3d 1076 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hunter 372643 v. Skinner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-372643-v-skinner-azd-2025.