Jackson v. Penzone

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedSeptember 26, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-01576
StatusUnknown

This text of Jackson v. Penzone (Jackson v. Penzone) 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
Jackson v. Penzone, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Opinion

1 MH 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Shante Jackson, No. CV-23-01576-PHX-JAT (ASB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Paul Penzone, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 On August 4, 2023, Plaintiff Shante Jackson, who is confined in a Maricopa County 16 Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application 17 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). On August 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First 18 Amended Complaint (Doc. 5) and a second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 19 (Doc. 6). The Court will grant the first Application to Proceed, deny the second 20 Application as moot, and dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend.1 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. The filing fee will be 25 collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited to 26 Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 27 28 1 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint supersedes the original Complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). 1 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 2 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 3 II. 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 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 1 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 2 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 3 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 4 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 5 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 6 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 7 to amend. 8 III. First Amended Complaint 9 In her one-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks damages from Maricopa 10 County Sheriff Paul Penzone and Maricopa County Supervisor Clint Hickman. Plaintiff 11 appears to contend that she has been exposed to “harmful agents,” including asbestos and 12 black mold, at the Estrella Jail and that this exposure has caused her physical, mental, and 13 emotional harm. (Doc. 5 at 3.) According to Plaintiff, asbestos and harmful agents “come 14 through the vents,” and there is black mold around the baseboards and in the showers, 15 toilets, and water. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that the Jail was condemned in 2017 and that 16 Defendant Penzone is aware it was condemned because he has had to pay fines to “keep 17 the buildings open.” (Id.) Plaintiff also claims that she suffers from ongoing congestion. 18 IV. Failure to State a Claim 19 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 20 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 21 v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a 22 liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the 23 claim that were not initially pled. Id. 24 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a 25 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 26 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 27 371-72, 377 (1976). “A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that 28 an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of [her] civil rights.” Barren v. 1 Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). There is no respondeat superior liability 2 under § 1983, and therefore, a defendant’s position as the supervisor of persons who 3 allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not impose liability. Monell v. 4 Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062

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

Related

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
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)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
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)
Respublica v. Doan
1 U.S. 86 (Supreme Court, 1784)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jackson v. Penzone, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-penzone-azd-2023.