Kleinfelt 337043 v. Gilbert

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJune 8, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-00872
StatusUnknown

This text of Kleinfelt 337043 v. Gilbert (Kleinfelt 337043 v. Gilbert) 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
Kleinfelt 337043 v. Gilbert, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 WO SC 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Daniel Alan Kleinfelt, No. CV 20-00872-PHX-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Correctional Officer III Gilbert, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Daniel Alan Kleinfelt, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 16 Complex-Lewis, in Buckeye, Arizona, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 17 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2).1 The 18 Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend.2 19 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 20 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $38.72. The remainder 23 24 1 Plaintiff filed a previous case, Kleinfelt v. Gilbert, No. 2:20cv00793-PHX-JAT (JFM), in which he filed a notice of change of address indicating that he is now incarcerated 25 in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson. Plaintiff has not, to date, filed a notice of change of address in this case and must do so if his address has changed. 26 2 If Plaintiff is granted in forma pauperis status in his previously filed case, CV 20- 27 00793, he will be responsible for paying the filing fee for both this case and that case. In that event, the Court would be required to collect 20% of Plaintiff’s previous month’s 28 income, for each case, each month. Bruce v. Samuels, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 136 S. Ct. 627, 631 (2016) (“[Section] 1915(b)(2) calls for simultaneous, not sequential recoupment of multiple filing fees.”). 1 of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 2 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 4 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 5 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 6 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 7 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 8 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 9 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 10 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 11 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). 12 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 13 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 14 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 15 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 16 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 17 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 18 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 19 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 20 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 21 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 22 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 23 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 24 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 25 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 26 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 27 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 28 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 1 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 2 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 3 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 4 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 5 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 6 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 7 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 8 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 9 III. Complaint 10 In his two-count Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims for denial of due process in 11 disciplinary proceedings and wrongful or excessive confinement. Plaintiff sues the 12 following employees of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) at the Lewis 13 Complex: Correctional Officers (COs) III Gilbert and T. Wade; CO IV Trapanier; and 14 Captain Hileman. Plaintiff seeks injunctive, compensatory, and punitive relief. 15 Plaintiff alleges the following facts in Count I: 16 On April 28, 2020, Plaintiff had a disciplinary hearing on three incidents. Prior to 17 the hearing, Plaintiff requested staff assistance because he had been placed in segregation, 18 which prevented Plaintiff from preparing a defense to the charges. The Disciplinary 19 Hearing Officer (DHO) said “too bad.” Prior to the hearing, Plaintiff also asked whether 20 he had to convince DHO that he was not guilty, and the DHO responded, “yes.” Plaintiff 21 claims the DHO was not impartial and denied him due process. Plaintiff claims that he 22 was charged with the disciplinary infractions in retaliation for submitting grievances and 23 complaints. Plaintiff claims that “prison officials” refused to interview or call witnesses, 24 which prevented Plaintiff from effectively presenting a defense. Plaintiff claims that the 25 denial of staff assistance and the right to be heard significantly hindered Plaintiff’s ability 26 to defend himself against the charges. Plaintiff contends that he reasonably relied on ADC 27 regulations, and the failure to produce witnesses and comply with its own regulations 28 violated his right to due process. 1 As his injury, Plaintiff alleges that he was classified from a minimum custody to a 2 level 4 custody, lost early release credit (ERC), and experienced physical and mental pain 3 and suffering. 4 In Count II, Plaintiff alleges the following: 5 On December 17, 2020, Plaintiff brought a concern under the Prison Rape 6 Elimination Act (PREA) to an unidentified sergeant and asked for assistance in addressing 7 the issue. The same day, Plaintiff was placed in segregation in a detention unit, where 8 Plaintiff was held through the filing of his Complaint in this case, awaiting transfer to a 9 permanent facility.

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

Related

Wolff v. McDonnell
418 U.S. 539 (Supreme Court, 1974)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Mathews v. Eldridge
424 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Montanye v. Haymes
427 U.S. 236 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Hewitt v. Helms
459 U.S. 460 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Sandin v. Conner
515 U.S. 472 (Supreme Court, 1995)
Wilkinson v. Dotson
544 U.S. 74 (Supreme Court, 2005)
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)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Leonard A. Pelullo
14 F.3d 881 (Third Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kleinfelt 337043 v. Gilbert, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kleinfelt-337043-v-gilbert-azd-2020.