Kauffman 360639 v. Department of Child Safety

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 22, 2024
Docket3:23-cv-08128
StatusUnknown

This text of Kauffman 360639 v. Department of Child Safety (Kauffman 360639 v. Department of Child Safety) 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. Department of Child Safety, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 MDR 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Luke Zion Yochai-Adams-Trimmer, No. CV-23-08128-PCT-JAT (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 D.C.S., et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Self-represented Plaintiff Luke Zion Yochai-Adams-Trimmer, who is also known 16 as Zion Z. Kauffman, is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis and is 17 proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. In an August 29, 2023 Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended 19 Complaint1 because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim and gave him an opportunity to file 20 a second amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 21 On September 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 10). He 22 then filed Motions (Docs. 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16) seeking to update his address, obtain 23 subpoenas, obtain copies, receive caselaw, and add defendants, claims, and documents. 24 The Clerk of Court lodged the subpoenas Plaintiff sought to have the Court 25 26

27 1 Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint before the Court had an opportunity 28 to review the original Complaint. Thus, the Court only screened the First Amended Complaint, not the original Complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (“an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading”). 1 issue. See Docs. 14 and 17. The Court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with 2 leave to amend and will deny the Motions. 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 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 If the Court determines a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a 4 self-represented litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 5 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 6 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint because he has failed to state a 7 claim, with leave to amend because the Second Amended Complaint possibly may be 8 amended to state a claim. 9 II. Second Amended Complaint 10 In his one-count Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Arizona Department of 11 Corrections, Rehabilitation & Re-entry (ADC) Director Ryan Thornell and Correctional 12 Officer IV Savila. He raises a First Amendment claim regarding the free exercise of his 13 religion and seeks monetary damages, for his “religious and Jewish faith to be ke[]pt” and 14 to “get the items [he] need[s].” 15 Plaintiff alleges he is Jewish. He claims that “as part of the Jewish faith, food is not 16 to be thrown away but [is to be] used in a meal lat[]er in the day” and that “part of the 17 Jewish faith [is] to eat fresh fruit[] with meals.” Plaintiff contends ADC policy is for 18 security staff to “pat the inmates down” to “forese [sic] on contrab[a]nd and/or food is 19 being taken into or out of the ch[o]w hall.” He also asserts he is being denied “religious 20 cloth[e]s and items for the Jewish faith by staff.” 21 III. Failure to State a Claim 22 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 23 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 24 v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal interpretation of a 25 civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 26 pled. Id. 27 To state a First Amendment, free-exercise-of-religion claim, a plaintiff must allege 28 that a defendant substantially burdened the practice of the plaintiff’s religion by preventing 1 him from engaging in a sincerely held religious belief and that the defendant did so without 2 any justification reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Shakur v. Schriro, 3 514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2008). A substantial burden is one that is “‘oppressive’ to 4 a ‘significantly great’ extent. That is, a ‘substantial burden’ on ‘religious exercise’ must 5 impose a significantly great restriction or onus upon such exercise.” Warsoldier v. 6 Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 995 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of 7 Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2004)). A substantial burden must be “more 8 than an inconvenience”; it prevents an inmate from “engaging in [religious] conduct or 9 having a religious experience.” Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God, 10 Inc., 227 F.3d 1110, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).

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)
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)
In Re Donald L. Richard, Sr.
914 F.2d 1526 (Sixth Circuit, 1990)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Shakur v. Schriro
514 F.3d 878 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Warsoldier v. Woodford
418 F.3d 989 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kauffman 360639 v. Department of Child Safety, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kauffman-360639-v-department-of-child-safety-azd-2024.