Luke 130646 v. Arizona, State of

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMay 19, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-00058
StatusUnknown

This text of Luke 130646 v. Arizona, State of (Luke 130646 v. Arizona, State 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
Luke 130646 v. Arizona, State of, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 WO JL 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Tyerel Darnel Luke, No. CV 20-00058-PHX-JAT (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 State of Arizona, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff Tyerel Darnel Luke, who is confined in the Arizona 16 State Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a February 26, 2020 Order, 18 the Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff 19 had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint 20 that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 21 On March 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7). On May 22 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Settle Case” (Doc. 8). On May 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed 23 a Motion for Emergency Injunction and Restraining Order (Doc. 9). The Court will deny 24 the Motions and dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 25 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 26 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 27 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 1 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 2 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 3 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 4 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 5 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 6 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 7 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 8 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 9 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 10 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 11 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 12 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 13 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 14 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 15 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 16 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 17 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 18 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 19 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 20 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 21 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 22 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 23 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 24 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 25 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 26 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 27 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 28 1 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 2 to amend. 3 II. First Amended Complaint 4 In his two-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Arizona Department of 5 Corrections (ADC) Director David Shinn, Facility Health Administrator C. Demery, and 6 Paralegal Ulaberry. Plaintiff asserts claims of denial of access to the courts and inadequate 7 medical care. He seeks to be placed in the Arizona State Hospital as a civilly-committed 8 person and for punitive damages in the amount of $1 million, but if he is not moved to the 9 Arizona State Hospital, he seeks additional damages of $10,000 per day. Plaintiff also 10 requests appointment of counsel. 11 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that he is unable to “get guidance” from the unit’s 12 paralegal, case law, and legal research books, in violation of the Americans with 13 Disabilities Act. He asserts he is not afforded learning or legal material to assist him in 14 fighting his unconstitutional conviction. Plaintiff claims he is seriously mentally ill and 15 “get[s] lost” in trying to defend himself, and the confusion in his thinking prevents him 16 from correctly defending himself. Plaintiff alleges that the state paralegal lies, provides 17 misleading information, and claims that she cannot help him. Plaintiff asserts that his 18 problems focusing, learning disability, and schizoaffective disorder “will be the 19 impairments” that keep him in prison, and access to the courts is “mostly close[d]” to him 20 because he is only allowed access to a prison paralegal. As his injury, Plaintiff claims he 21 has experienced self-doubt, voices, “cell tipping,” anxiety, confusion, and further 22 imprisonment in his mind. 23 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that he has been diagnosed as mentally and seriously 24 mentally ill since 1991. He asserts that the mental health staff allowed a non-sex offender 25 prisoner into Plaintiff’s cell to fight him, and non-sex offenders “get[] the good jobs,” 26 Walkmans, and televisions. Plaintiff claims he complained and “had to fight” with a non- 27 sex offender and was “sp[r]ayed.” Plaintiff alleges that the mental health officer said that 28 during the fight, Plaintiff hit an officer, which never happened. Plaintiff asserts he received 1 major tickets, while the other prisoner received only a minor ticket. Plaintiff claims the 2 mental health units are very dangerous and he was “very close to killing” to protect himself 3 against prisoners and officers. Plaintiff alleges that when he defends himself, he gets into 4 trouble, so he “signed out” of the SMI units “before they cause[d] him to kill.” Plaintiff 5 asserts that the provider is giving him medication to increase his high blood pressure. He 6 claims that ADC medical staff cannot care for him like the Arizona State Hospital can. 7 Plaintiff alleges he was “last there” in 2013 and had the right medication, healthcare, and 8 mental health treatment. He asserts that he can get the best care without worrying whom 9 mental health staff and officers are going to allow in his cell to “make war with [him].” 10 Plaintiff claims that at the Arizona State Hospital, he has full access to caselaw, guidance, 11 and direct phone calls to any attorney. He alleges he needs pro bono assistance. 12 III. Failure to State a Claim 13 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 14 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 15 v. Bd.

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

Related

Locke v. United States
11 U.S. 339 (Supreme Court, 1813)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Preiser v. Rodriguez
411 U.S. 475 (Supreme Court, 1973)
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)
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel
526 U.S. 838 (Supreme Court, 1999)
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)
Powell v. Alexander
391 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2004)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Luke 130646 v. Arizona, State of, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luke-130646-v-arizona-state-of-azd-2020.