Labash v. Shinn

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedAugust 6, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-00970
StatusUnknown

This text of Labash v. Shinn (Labash v. Shinn) 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
Labash v. Shinn, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Opinion

1 WO SC 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Sean T. Labash, No. CV 21-00970-PHX-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 David Shinn, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On May 27, 2021, Prisoners Vincent M. Allen, Sean Timothy Labash, Mario 16 Alexander Aguilar, Anor M. Peterson, David Quinn, Daniel Thorson, and James L. 17 Phillips, all of whom are or were confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex (ASPC)- 18 Yuma, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Allen v. Shinn, 19 CV 21-00933-PHX-GMS (CDB). In a June 7, 2021 Order, the Court severed the case into 20 individual actions, one for each prisoner-plaintiff; directed the Clerk of Court to open a 21 new case for each prisoner-plaintiff and to file a copy of the Order in each new case; and 22 directed the individual prisoner-plaintiffs to proceed independently from that point. The 23 Court gave each prisoner-plaintiff 30 days to (1) pay the filing and administrative fees or 24 file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in his individual case and (2) to file an 25 amended complaint in his individual case asserting only his claims. 26 This case was opened on behalf of Plaintiff Sean T. Labash (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”). 27 Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 4) and an Application to Proceed In 28 Forma Pauperis (Doc. 5). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed and dismiss the 1 First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 2 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 3 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $48.31. Id. Thereafter, 6 the balance of the statutory filing fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the 7 previous month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the 8 account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order 9 requiring the appropriate government agency to collect and forward the fees according to 10 the statutory formula. 11 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 12 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 13 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 14 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 15 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 16 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 17 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 18 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 19 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 20 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 21 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 22 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 23 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 24 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 25 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 26 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 27 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 28 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 1 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 2 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 3 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 4 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 5 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 6 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 7 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 8 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 9 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 10 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 11 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 12 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 13 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 14 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 15 to amend. 16 III. First Amended Complaint 17 In his three-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims for denial of 18 basic necessities and denial of constitutionally adequate medical care. Plaintiff sues David 19 Shinn, the director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry 20 (ADC), and Yuma Complex Deputy Warden Daniel Town. Plaintiff also sues Centurion, 21 a private entity that has contracted with ADC to provide medical care to ADC prisoners, 22 and Trinity, another private entity that has contracted with ADC to provide meals to ADC 23 prisoners. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive relief. 24 In Count I, Plaintiff alleges the following: 25 In March 2020, a few prisoners became very ill in the LaPaz Unit, where Plaintiff 26 was housed. Plaintiff asked to be tested for COVID-19 because several prisoners in his 27 dorm had tested positive. However, medical staff refused to test Plaintiff. Plaintiff also 28 asked if he could wear a face mask, but ADC staff responded no, even after Plaintiff told 1 them he could make his own mask out of a washcloth Plaintiff had purchased. ADC staff 2 told Plaintiff that if he wore a mask, he would be placed on lockdown. 3 In August 2020, Defendant Town came to Plaintiff’s dorm and told the prisoners 4 they would work in the kitchen, if told to do so by staff. Town also told them that he did 5 not care if they felt bad saying a flu bug was going around. Plaintiff told Town prisoners 6 in the unit had tested positive for COVID-19, to stop lying, and he wanted to be tested. 7 Town said no. Plaintiff asked for a mask and Town told Plaintiff he did not need a mask 8 “right now.” Plaintiff asked for cleaning supplies and disinfectants but Town responded 9 “not right now.” Plaintiff then asked Town for toilet paper telling him there had been no 10 toilet paper for two weeks and told him they needed soap. Town responded that he would 11 see what he could do. Plaintiff was unable to get Heath Needs Request (HNR) forms to 12 seek medical care and no one would provide him with grievance forms.

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

Related

Buckner v. Toro
116 F.3d 450 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
Bank of the United States v. Deveaux
9 U.S. 61 (Supreme Court, 1809)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Estelle v. Gamble
429 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Hutto v. Finney
437 U.S. 678 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Kentucky v. Graham
473 U.S. 159 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Hafer v. Melo
502 U.S. 21 (Supreme Court, 1991)
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)
Elviraida Laracuente v. The Chase Manhattan Bank
891 F.2d 17 (First Circuit, 1989)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Labash v. Shinn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/labash-v-shinn-azd-2021.