Linda Lee Farrell v. State of Arizona, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMarch 5, 2026
Docket2:25-cv-04553
StatusUnknown

This text of Linda Lee Farrell v. State of Arizona, et al. (Linda Lee Farrell v. State of Arizona, et al.) 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
Linda Lee Farrell v. State of Arizona, et al., (D. Ariz. 2026).

Opinion

1 KM 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Linda Lee Farrell, No. CV-25-04553-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 State of Arizona, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Self-represented Plaintiff Linda Lee Farrell, who is confined in a Maricopa County 16 Jail, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application 17 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed 18 and 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 not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 23 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 24 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 26 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 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 [self-represented litigant’s] filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 25 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a self-represented prisoner] 26 ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. 27 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 28 . . . . 1 If the Court determines a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a 2 self-represented 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 her three-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues the State of Arizona, the Maricopa 8 County Sheriff’s Office, Estrella Jail, and Does 1-20 for monetary damages. 9 In all three Counts, Plaintiff alleges she is confined in a jail that is “unhealthy” and 10 “contains black mold everywhere [including] walls, floors, windowsills, toilets, showers, 11 dayroom, and garbage bins.” She also claims the “air vents are not properly changed.” As 12 her injury, Plaintiff states she has suffered eye, ear, and throat infections, skin rashes, 13 migraine headaches, and “breathing/respiratory infections, bronchitis, etc.” 14 IV. Failure to State a Claim 15 A. State of Arizona 16 Under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a state or 17 state agency may not be sued in federal court without its consent. Pennhurst State Sch. & 18 Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th 19 Cir. 1989). Furthermore, “a state is not a ‘person’ for purposes of section 1983.” Gilbreath 20 v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1327 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). The 21 Court will therefore dismiss Defendant State of Arizona. 22 B. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office 23 The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not a proper defendant because it is a “non- 24 jural entity.” Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Braillard 25 v. Maricopa County, 232 P.3d 1263, 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)). In Arizona, the 26 responsibility of operating jails and caring for prisoners is placed by law upon the sheriff. 27 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 11-441(A)(5), 31-101. A sheriff’s office is simply an administrative 28 creation of the county sheriff to allow him to carry out his statutory duties and is not a 1 “person” amenable to suit pursuant to § 1983. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss 2 Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. 3 C. Estrella Jail 4 Section 1983 imposes liability on any “person” who violates an individual’s federal 5 rights while acting under color of state law. Congress intended municipalities and other 6 local government units to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies. 7 Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 689-90 (1978). However, the Estrella Jail is 8 a building or collection of buildings, not a person or legally created entity capable of being 9 sued.

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

Related

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)
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 2007)
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)
Taylor v. List
880 F.2d 1040 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
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)
Braillard v. Maricopa County
232 P.3d 1263 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2010)
Manuel Ortega Melendres v. Joseph Arpaio
784 F.3d 1254 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Hearns v. Terhune
413 F.3d 1036 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Jonathon Castro v. County of Los Angeles
833 F.3d 1060 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Mary Gordon v. County of Orange
888 F.3d 1118 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)
Alvarez-Machain v. United States
107 F.3d 696 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Linda Lee Farrell v. State of Arizona, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linda-lee-farrell-v-state-of-arizona-et-al-azd-2026.