Knudsen v. Penzone

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedFebruary 19, 2021
Docket2:20-cv-02440
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

1 WO MH 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Brett Aaron Knudsen, No. CV 20-02440-PHX-JAT (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Paul Penzone, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On December 18, 2020, Plaintiff Brett Aaron Knudsen, who was previously 16 confined in a Maricopa County Jail,1 filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 17 U.S.C. §1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The 18 Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 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 $25.83. The remainder 23 of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 24 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 26 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 27

28 1 On February 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address indicating that he is now confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson. 1 II. 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). 4 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 5 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 In his three-count Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the conditions of confinement at 8 the Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail violated his Eighth Amendment rights. He is 9 seeking damages from Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone and the 10 Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. 11 In Count One, Plaintiff characterizes the Fourth Avenue Jail as a “dirty facility” 12 with “mice, dirty air, dirty nail clippers, no bleach, not enough cleaning liquids, dirty mop 13 [and] broom, mold in shower, and blood cleaned up w[ith] glass cleaner.” Plaintiff 14 allegedly suffered a staph infection and asthma as a result of these conditions. 15 In Count Two, Plaintiff claims that Fourth Avenue Jail inmates have been placed at 16 risk for contracting COVID-19. He claims that inmates are confined in small cells together, 17 share common areas that are not cleaned, share “dirty [and] sometimes bloody” hair 18 clippers, are transferred between different pods and jails, and are housed too close to the 19 quarantine pod. According to Plaintiff, there is no social distancing, hand sanitizer for 20 inmates, or mask-use mandate, and there have been COVID-19 outbreaks among staff and 21 inmates. Plaintiff also alleges that detention officers and nurses fail to change their gloves. 22 In Count Three, Plaintiff claims that the food at the Fourth Avenue Jail lacks 23 nutritional value. Although his allegations are somewhat unclear, he appears to claim that 24 inmates are served two meals a day consisting, variously, of peanut butter and jelly 25 sandwiches, rice, slop, overcooked vegetables, and rotten fruit. Plaintiff further claims that 26 food portions are being reduced, that he was denied a special diet despite his irritable bowel 27 syndrome, and that the food at the jail is causing him bloating and stomach pains. Plaintiff 28 also states, “Website lies [and] says we get pizza, burgers etc.” 1 IV. 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 of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a 5 liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the 6 claim that were not initially pled. Id. 7 A. Defendant Penzone 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).

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 v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
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)
United States v. Leonard A. Pelullo
14 F.3d 881 (Third Circuit, 1994)
Bull v. City and County of San Francisco
595 F.3d 964 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

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