Kauffman 360639 v. Mohave, County of

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 23, 2024
Docket3:23-cv-08030
StatusUnknown

This text of Kauffman 360639 v. Mohave, County of (Kauffman 360639 v. Mohave, County of) 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. Mohave, County of, (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 Zion Z. Kauffman, No. CV-23-08030-PCT-JAT (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Mohave County, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Self-represented Plaintiff Zion Z. Kauffman is confined in the Arizona State Prison 16 Complex-Lewis and proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In an August 30, 2023 Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s 18 Second Amended Complaint1 because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim and gave him an 19 opportunity to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 20 On September 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 23). He 21 then filed Motions (Docs. 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, and 30) seeking to update his address, obtain 22 subpoenas, obtain copies, receive caselaw, and add defendants, claims, and documents. 23 The Clerk of Court lodged the subpoenas Plaintiff sought to have the Court 24 issue. See Docs. 28 and 31. The Court will dismiss the Third Amended Complaint with 25 leave to amend and will deny the Motions. 26 27 1 Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint before the Court had an opportunity to review the original Complaint and First Amended Complaint. Thus, the Court only 28 screened the Second Amended Complaint, not the original and First Amended Complaints. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (“an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading”). 1 I. 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 . . . . 1 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 2 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 3 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 4 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, with 5 leave to amend because it may possibly be amended to state a claim. 6 II. Third Amended Complaint 7 In his three-count Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Arizona Department of 8 Corrections, Rehabilitation & Re-entry (ADC) Director Ryan Thornell and Correctional 9 Officer IV Savila. He raises claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and 10 seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. 11 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that between March 29 and September 22, 2023, he 12 was seen by nurse practitioners at three different units and requested special needs orders 13 for a lower bunk on a lower tier and blankets he needs because he has scoliosis, a 14 “[qua]lified disability under the ADA.” He claims “unreasonable refuses to provide MRH” 15 with the special needs orders and ADC is denying “M.R.” “reasonable accomm[o]dation.” 16 Plaintiff asserts that every time he climbs or descends the ladder to his bunk, he experiences 17 severe pain, loses his balance, and “fall[s] or almost fall[s] off of the lad[d]er.” 18 In Count Two, Plaintiff contends he is being denied reasonable accommodations 19 because he is “not being allow[ed] to have [a] special needs order for over[-]the[-]ear 20 headphones for [his] hearing aids.” He asserts this has caused post-traumatic stress 21 disorder, anxiety, stress, and a traumatic brain injury. 22 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges he is being denied a “reasonable needs order for 23 a waiver for mandatory schooling due to not being allow[ed] to have [a] special needs 24 order” for his traumatic brain injury. He states there is an ADA violation “as to 25 [prescription] eye[]glasses that work.” Plaintiff claims this has caused post-traumatic 26 stress disorder, anxiety, stress, and a traumatic brain injury. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 III. Failure to State a Claim 2 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 3 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 4 v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal interpretation of a 5 civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 6 pled. Id. 7 A. Defendants Thornell and Savila 8 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a 9 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 10 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 11 371-72, 377 (1976). There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and therefore, 12 a defendant’s position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s 13 constitutional rights does not impose liability. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.

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

Related

Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
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 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (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)
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)
Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell
981 F.2d 1062 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Richard McGary v. City of Portland
386 F.3d 1259 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Perpich v. United States Department of Defense
880 F.2d 11 (Eighth Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kauffman 360639 v. Mohave, County of, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kauffman-360639-v-mohave-county-of-azd-2024.