Kauffman 360639 v. Arizona State Prison Complex Eyman Rynning Unit

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedAugust 31, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-01278
StatusUnknown

This text of Kauffman 360639 v. Arizona State Prison Complex Eyman Rynning Unit (Kauffman 360639 v. Arizona State Prison Complex Eyman Rynning Unit) 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
Kauffman 360639 v. Arizona State Prison Complex Eyman Rynning Unit, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Opinion

1 MDR 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Zion Z. Kauffman, No. CV-23-01278-PHX-JAT (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Rynning (Prison), et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On July 11, 2023, pro se Plaintiff Zion Z. Kauffman, who is confined in the Arizona 16 State Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 On July 17, 2023, he filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 5) with a second amended 18 complaint attached (the “First/Second Amended Complaint”). On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff 19 filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 6). The Court will grant the 20 Application to Proceed and will dismiss the First/Second Amended Complaint with leave 21 to amend. 22 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 23 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 24 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 26 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 27 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 28 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 1 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 2 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 3 III. Discussion 4 An amended complaint supersedes the original and prior amended complaints. 5 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard 6 Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court treats the 7 original and prior amended complaints as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. 8 Because Plaintiff’s First/Second Amended Complaint includes both a first amended 9 complaint and a second amended complaint, it is unclear whether Plaintiff intended to 10 (1) supersede the First Amended Complaint with the Second Amended Complaint or 11 (2) include claims from both documents. Thus, the Court, in its discretion, will dismiss the 12 First/Second Amended Complaint without prejudice. The Court will give Plaintiff leave 13 to file a third amended complaint that coherently presents all the claims Plaintiff intends to 14 raise in this action. 15 IV. Leave to Amend 16 Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a third amended complaint to cure the 17 deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form 18 to use for filing a third amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved 19 form, the Court may strike the third amended complaint and dismiss this action without 20 further notice to Plaintiff. 21 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “Third 22 Amended Complaint.” The third amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 23 entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 24 Complaint or prior Amended Complaints by reference. Plaintiff may include only one 25 claim per count. 26 A third amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint and prior Amended 27 Complaints. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d at 1546. After 28 amendment, the Court will treat the original Complaint and prior Amended Complaints as 1 nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the original 2 Complaint or prior Amended Complaints and that was voluntarily dismissed or was 3 dismissed without prejudice is waived if it is not alleged in a third amended complaint. 4 Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 5 If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements 6 telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name 7 of the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to 8 do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of 9 Plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of 10 that Defendant’s conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 11 Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he names as a Defendant. If 12 Plaintiff fails to affirmatively link the conduct of each named Defendant with the specific 13 injury suffered by Plaintiff, the allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for 14 failure to state a claim. Conclusory allegations that a Defendant or group of 15 Defendants has violated a constitutional right are not acceptable and will be 16 dismissed.

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

Related

United States v. Gurney and Others
8 U.S. 333 (Supreme Court, 1808)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States
429 U.S. 17 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Wilson v. Garcia
471 U.S. 261 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Heck v. Humphrey
512 U.S. 477 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Wallace v. Kato
127 S. Ct. 1091 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz.
609 F.3d 1011 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Rapoport
159 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 1998)
Lesley v. Hee Man Chie
250 F.3d 47 (First Circuit, 2001)
Powell v. Alexander
391 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2004)
Kiman v. New Hampshire Department of Corrections
451 F.3d 274 (First Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kauffman 360639 v. Arizona State Prison Complex Eyman Rynning Unit, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kauffman-360639-v-arizona-state-prison-complex-eyman-rynning-unit-azd-2023.