Jones 322621 v. Henry

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided June 10, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-00667·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO KM 2 3 4 5 8 9 Victor Zhaquis Jones, No. CV 21-00667-PHX-JAT (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Unknown Henry, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On April 16, 2021, Plaintiff Victor Zhaquis Jones, who is confined in the Arizona 16 State Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983 (Doc. 1). In an April 23, 2021 Order, the Court directed Plaintiff to pay the filing 18 fee or file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On May 6, 2021, Plaintiff paid 19 the filing and administrative fees. The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to 20 amend. 21 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 22 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 23 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 24 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 25 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 26 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 27 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 28 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 1 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 2 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 3 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 4 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 5 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 6 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 7 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 8 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 9 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 10 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 11 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 12 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 13 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 14 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 15 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 16 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 17 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 18 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 19 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 20 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 21 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 22 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 23 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 24 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 25 II. Complaint 26 Plaintiff names Deputy Warden Henry, Warden Walter Hensley, Centurion of 27 Arizona, LLC, and the Arizona Department of Corrections’ Tactical Security Unity (TSU) 28 as Defendants in his four-count Complaint. Plaintiff seeks money damages. 1 Plaintiff alleges that on November 25, 2020, between 5:30 and 9:30 p.m., an inmate 2 disturbance was in progress. Plaintiff heard an order over the loudspeaker for all inmates 3 to return to their buildings to lockdown. Plaintiff returned to his run and cubicle and 4 climbed onto his bunk. Plaintiff heard shock grenades exploding and began to smell tear 5 gas. Plaintiff claims “suddenly 10 TSU Officers all armed [with] body armor stormed his 6 run and ordered Plaintiff and other inmates off their bunks and to line up and to shut-up 7 and to keep [their] eyes pointed towards the ground.” Plaintiff was then taken to the 8 showers, stripped and told to put his arms behind his back, and his wrists were bound with 9 a plastic tie. When Plaintiff told a TSU Officer that the plastic tie was too tight and cutting 10 off his blood circulation, he was told to “shut-up.” Plaintiff “asked for a Supervisor and 11 that’s when Plaintiff was slammed face down in the dirt and he yelled stop it and he was 12 lifted up a second time and he was slammed down on his back and shoulder area, causing 13 Plaintiff extreme pain.” Plaintiff was then taken to the medical unit where a nurse “said 14 Plaintiff would be ok and Plaintiff after [illegible] was again push[ed] up against a stone 15 wall, hurting Plaintiff’s neck [and] shoulder.” 16 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Henry violated his Eighth Amendment 17 rights “by ordering the TSU to use excessive force to put down a riot causing Plaintiff 18 permanent injury.” 19 In Count Two, Plaintiff claims Defendant Henry violated his Eighth Amendment 20 rights when he ordered the TSU unit to use excessive force, including flash grenades and 21 tear gas. Plaintiff claims he did not receive any treatment at the medical unit for his serious 22 injuries. Plaintiff alleges he “requested medical attention from Defendant Henry and . . 23 Plaintiff was scheduled to see [a] medical nurse for his injuries.” Plaintiff asked “why 24 excessive force [was used] and he was told that Defendant ordered whatever it took to bring 25 peace on Cook Unit.” Plaintiff alleges he “told Defendant that he was not involved in the 26 disturbance and Plaintiff was told that Defendant didn’t believe him, Plaintiff was never 27 charged in this matter.” 28 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Centurion violated his Eighth 1 Amendment rights by failing to provide adequate medical care. Plaintiff claims he suffered 2 injuries to his shoulder and neck when officers twice slammed him to the ground. At the 3 medical unit, a nurse examined his injuries and determined Plaintiff “could wait till 4 November 26, 2020” for treatment. Plaintiff claims he was not given anything for his 5 injuries or pain and was not examined until days later, when his “neck, back, shoulders and 6 arms [were] swollen [to] 3 times [their] size.” Plaintiff claims Centurion medical staff told 7 him “to just endure, because his swelling and injuries would go away, but it’s gotten 8 [worse] and . . . Plaintiff cannot sleep or sit without extreme pain.” 9 In Count Four, Plaintiff alleges the TSU Officers violated his Eighth Amendment 10 rights by using excessive force in response to the riot. 11 III. Failure to State a Claim 12 A. Defendant Hensley 13 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a 14 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 15 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 16 371-72, 377 (1976). There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and therefore, 17 a defendant’s position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated P

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

Jones 322621 v. Henry, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Jones 322621 v. Henry (Jones 322621 v. Henry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Buckner v. Toro
116 F.3d 450 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
The Amiable Isabella
19 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1821)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
United States v. Dieter
429 U.S. 6 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Hudson v. McMillian
503 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1992)
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)
Cox v. Maine State Police
391 F.3d 25 (First Circuit, 2004)
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)
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)