Johnson v. Shinn

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided May 4, 2022·No. 2:22-cv-00537·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO SC 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Takisha M. Johnson, No. CV 22-00537-PHX-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 David Shinn, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Takisha M. Johnson, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex- 16 Perryville, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), 17 an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2), and a motion for appointment of 18 counsel (Doc. 3). The Court will grant the Application, deny the motion, and dismiss the 19 Complaint with leave to amend. 20 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 21 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $72.40. The remainder 24 of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 25 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 26 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 27 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 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 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 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 1 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 2 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 3 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 4 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 5 III. Complaint 6 In her one-count Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claim for threat to safety. Plaintiff 7 sues Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADC) Director 8 David Shinn and Perryville Complex Deputy Warden Bendell. Plaintiff seeks injunctive, 9 compensatory, and punitive relief and her costs. 10 Plaintiff alleges the following facts: 11 At some point, Plaintiff was assigned a prison job as a maintenance helper. 12 Although ADC policy provides that workers are to receive safety training and equipment, 13 Plaintiff was “forced” to work in hazardous conditions without training or equipment. 14 Plaintiff was unable to avoid safety hazards because ADC policy provides that prisoners 15 are required to finish all work assignments and that the refusal to do so will result in being 16 charged with a major disciplinary infraction. 17 On July 7, 2021, Plaintiff was required to work on the roof of Lumley Housing Unit 18 D; the roof was in a “major state of disrepair and decay.” Plaintiff had no safety gear or 19 training and there was little to no supervision in what she characterizes as a hazardous 20 environment. Plaintiff was ordered to climb down an approximate six-foot high wall into 21 a pit housing swamp coolers1 (evaporative coolers). Plaintiff is less than 5 feet tall. The 22 pit was filled with debris and animal feces, was wet and slippery, and there was no ladder 23 or railing. Plaintiff fell as she attempted to climb down the wall as ordered and was 24 seriously injured. 25 The condition of the roof and lack of ladders significantly delayed the arrival of 26 medical personnel. When medical staff did arrive, they ordered officers to call 911. First 27

28 1 Although unclear, the “pit” was apparently on the roof and Plaintiff apparently had to descend from a second story roof to the roof where the pit was located. 1 responders arrived but a gate surrounding the building prevented them from being able to 2 drive their vehicles onto or near the roof where Plaintiff was injured, leaving her “trapped” 3 on the roof in excruciating pain. An additional fire truck, with a ladder that could extend 4 over the building from outside the gate, was summoned in order to reach Plaintiff. 5 According to Plaintiff, the gate’s dimensions did not comply with fire codes and 6 significantly delayed Plaintiff’s rescue. Plaintiff was eventually retrieved from the roof 7 and taken to a hospital where she received emergency surgery. Despite Plaintiff’s 8 experience and grievance, no action has been taken to correct the hazardous conditions in 9 which she was required to work. 10 Plaintiff’s ankle was broken in three places and dislocated, which required surgery 11 and implanted hardware. Plaintiff suffers ongoing pain, and permanent, significantly 12 limited mobility. 13 IV.

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

Johnson v. Shinn, (D. Ariz. 2022).

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

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)
Kentucky v. Graham
473 U.S. 159 (Supreme Court, 1985)
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)
United States v. Porfirio Johnson Figaro
935 F.2d 4 (First Circuit, 1991)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
American Casualty Co. v. Baker
22 F.3d 880 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)