Luke 130646 v. Milburn

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided March 26, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-02254·Unknown

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 20-02254-PHX-JAT (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 C. Milburn, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On November 23, 2020, Plaintiff Tyerel Darnel Luke, who is confined in the 16 Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a December 3, 2020 18 Order, the Court denied the deficient Application to Proceed and gave Plaintiff 30 days to 19 pay the filing and administrative fees or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma 20 Pauperis and a certified six-month trust account statement. 21 On December 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file an 22 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, which the Court granted in a January 7, 2021 23 Order. 24 On February 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting an extension of time to file 25 an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a February 19, 2021 Order, the Court 26 granted Plaintiff an additional 30 days to pay the filing and administrative fees or file a 27 complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a certified six-month trust account 28 statement. 1 On March 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a “Motion and Still Emergency” and a certified 2 six-month trust account statement. However, Plaintiff did not file an Application to 3 Proceed In Forma Pauperis, as required by the December 3, 2020 Order. In a March 12, 4 2021 Order, the Court gave Plaintiff an additional 30 days to file an Application to Proceed 5 In Forma Pauperis. The Court noted that Plaintiff did not need to file another certified six- 6 month trust account statement. 7 On March 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma 8 Pauperis (Doc. 27) and a Motion for an Evaluation and Court Order (Doc. 28). The Court 9 will grant the Application to Proceed, deny the Motion, and dismiss the Complaint with 10 leave to amend. 11 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 12 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 13 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 14 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 15 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 16 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 18 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 19 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 20 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 21 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 23 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 24 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 25 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 26 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 27 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 28 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 1 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 2 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 3 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 4 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 5 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 6 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 7 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 8 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 9 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 10 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 11 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 12 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 13 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 14 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 15 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 16 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 17 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 18 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 19 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 20 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 21 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 22 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 23 III. Complaint 24 In his two-count Complaint,1 Plaintiff sues Correctional Officer (CO) IV C. Milburn 25 and unknown Centurion personnel. Plaintiff asserts claims of a threat to his safety and 26 27

28 1 Portions of Plaintiff’s handwriting are too faint to be legible; Plaintiff notes that he is not allowed to have a pen. 1 inadequate medical care. He seeks monetary relief and injunctive relief.2 2 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that on September 22, 2020, he submitted an Inmate 3 Informal Complaint Resolution to the CO III on his “cluster.” Defendant Milburn, the 4 Grievance Coordinator at the time, “deemed” the Informal Complaint unprocessed and not 5 appealable. Defendant Milburn cited as a reason for returning the Informal Complaint 6 unprocessed that Plaintiff had threatened serious bodily harm to staff, prisoners, or the 7 general public. Plaintiff states he submitted the Informal Complaint to notify Arizona 8 Department of Corrections (ADC) Director David Shinn of Plaintiff’s voluntary request to 9 be civilly committed or evaluated for treatment at the Arizona State Hospital because he 10 knows that under Arizona law, he has an unqualified right to treatment because of his 11 mental illness, specifically, schizoaffective disorder.3 Plaintiff claims that because of 12 Defendant Milburn’s deliberate indifference to his mental health—presumably, his return 13 of the Informal Complaint unprocessed—Plaintiff was unable to appeal to Director Shinn 14 for mental health treatment.

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

Luke 130646 v. Milburn, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Luke 130646 v. Milburn (Luke 130646 v. Milburn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Estelle v. Gamble
429 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court, 1976)
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)
United States v. Richardson
14 F.3d 666 (First Circuit, 1994)
Powell v. Alexander
391 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2004)
Engine Specialties, Inc. v. Bombardier Limited
605 F.2d 1 (First Circuit, 1979)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Eric Sanchez v. Duane R. Vild
891 F.2d 240 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)