July v. Penzone

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedApril 5, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-00282
StatusUnknown

This text of July v. Penzone (July 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
July v. Penzone, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Opinion

1 WO JL 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Brandon Pierre July, Sr., No. CV 21-00282-PHX-JAT (MHB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Paul Penzone, et al., 13 14 Defendants.

15 16 On February 12, 2021, Plaintiff Brandon Pierre July, Sr., who is confined in a 17 Maricopa County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 18 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a February 23, 2021 Order, the Court 19 granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had 20 failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that 21 cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 22 On March 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. In a March 12, 23 2021 Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint because Plaintiff had failed 24 to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended complaint that 25 cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 26 On March 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default Judgment (Doc. 27 8)1 and on March 25, 2021, he filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 10). The Court 28 1 The Request for Entry of Default Judgment was not docketed until March 12, 2021. 1 will deny the Request, dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, and grant Plaintiff one 2 final opportunity to amend his claims. 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 . . . .

26 In the Request, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant was “se[rv]ed” with the Complaint on February 11, 2021 and failed to respond within the time provided in the Federal Rules of 27 Civil Procedure. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, no Defendant has been served in this case. Merely filing a civil rights complaint does not amount to service on any Defendant. 28 Rather, the Court must first screen pro se prisoner civil rights complaints to determine whether any named Defendants should be served. 1 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 2 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 3 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 4 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 5 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 6 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 7 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 8 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 9 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 10 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 11 to amend. This will be Plaintiff’s final opportunity to amend his claims. 12 II. Second Amended Complaint 13 In his two-count Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Maricopa County 14 Sheriff Paul Penzone, Captain Spuron, Sergeant Parker, and Hearing Sergeant Johnson. 15 Plaintiff asserts claims of denial of access to counsel and a threat to his safety. He seeks 16 monetary relief. 17 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that on January 8, 2021, he submitted a request for a 18 legal call, as Defendant Parker had instructed him to do. Plaintiff’s request for a legal call 19 was not approved. The same day, Plaintiff submitted a grievance directed to Defendant 20 Penzone. Plaintiff contends this “show[]s” that Defendant Penzone “is notified of any and 21 all” grievances submitted by detainees at the 4th Avenue Jail. Plaintiff asserts that 22 Defendant Penzone “cho[]se not to correct the error that occur[r]ed.” 23 Plaintiff alleges that because he was not allowed to make the legal call, he could not 24 inform his legal advisor “of a question he needed answered” before filing a motion in his 25 criminal proceeding, where he is proceeding pro se. Plaintiff asserts the failure to approve 26 the legal call violated his civil rights as well as jail policy. He also contends that Defendant 27 Penzone, as Sheriff, “is informed of all issues involving his jail” but chose not to address 28 and correct “the problem,” as did the other named Defendants. Plaintiff claims a motion 1 in his criminal proceeding that, if granted, could have “ex[]onerated” him,” was denied 2 because he was unable to contact his legal advisor. Plaintiff also alleges that he has been 3 mentally and physically “[a]ffected.” 4 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that on February 10, 2021, he was taken to an 5 observation pod and placed in a cell alone. The cell was unsanitary and unsafe, and 6 Plaintiff requested cleaning supplies, but his requests were denied. Plaintiff “requested” a 7 Sergeant and the Captain so that his “issue” could be addressed, but he was “denied that as 8 well.” Plaintiff submitted a grievance directed to Defendant Penzone. Plaintiff asserts that 9 Defendant Penzone is “ke[pt] informed” of all issues in the Jail through grievances and by 10 the Captain. Plaintiff alleges he went through the channels “they” tell detainees they must 11 take if they have been “wronged or have an issue” and completed all the paperwork, but 12 his issues were not resolved. Plaintiff contends that the floor officers—Defendants Parker, 13 Spuron, and Johnson—and Defendant Penzone failed to follow CDC guidelines for 14 maintaining sanitary conditions and safe distancing by housing eight detainees in one cell.

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)
Lewis v. Casey
518 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court, 1996)
Christopher v. Harbury
536 U.S. 403 (Supreme Court, 2002)
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)
Cousins v. Lockyer
568 F.3d 1063 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Pino v. Dalsheim
558 F. Supp. 673 (S.D. New York, 1983)
Scott Nordstrom v. Charles Ryan
762 F.3d 903 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
July v. Penzone, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/july-v-penzone-azd-2021.