Martinez v. Maricopa, County of

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMarch 13, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-02233
StatusUnknown

This text of Martinez v. Maricopa, County of (Martinez v. Maricopa, County 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
Martinez v. Maricopa, County of, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Opinion

1 KEB 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Carlos Manuel Camarena Martinez, No. CV-24-02233-PHX-JAT(JZB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Maricopa County, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Carlos Manuel Camarena Martinez, who is confined in Lower Buckeye Jail 16 in Maricopa County, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint1 (Doc. 1) and an Application 17 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed 18 and 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 $10.07. 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 26 1 Plaintiff alleges the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Because Plaintiff is 27 only suing state actors, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s claims as having been asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996) 28 (“Actions under § 1983 and those under Bivens are identical save for the replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a federal actor under Bivens.” (quoting Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991))). 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 2 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 3 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 4 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 5 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has 7 raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 8 may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 9 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 10 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 11 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 12 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 13 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 14 “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 15 statements, do not suffice.” Id. 16 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 17 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 18 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 19 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 21 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 22 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 23 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 24 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 25 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 26 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th 27 Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 28 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 1 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 2 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 3 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 4 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127–29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 5 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because it may 6 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 7 III. Complaint 8 In his two-count Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants Maricopa County, 9 former Maricopa County Sheriff Russell Skinner, Acting Jail Commander Patrick King, 10 and Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) Jail Officials/Detention Officers Jane/John 11 Does 1–15. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and “that any claims and complaints are 12 dismissed with prejudice.” 13 In Count One, Plaintiff raises a claim under the Eighth and Fourteenth 14 Amendments regarding the implementation of an “unconstitutional policy.” Plaintiff 15 contends he filed a grievance, and a non-party sergeant “closed” his complaint because it 16 was “not valid” after 72 hours, i.e., that he failed to timely submit it. Plaintiff seeks to have 17 Defendant Maricopa County, “in its entirety,” held “responsible for implementing this 18 unconstitutional policy” that “depriv[ed him] of [his] constitutional rights.” 19 In Count Two, Plaintiff raises a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment regarding 20 the implementation of an “unconstitutional policy.” He alleges that “[o]n and about” May 21 25 through May 30, 2024, wastewater flooded the day room in unit T-12-B at the Lower 22 Buckeye Jail. Plaintiff claims that during these five days, “MCSO jail officials served 23 approximately 10 meals to [Plaintiff] and 71 other inmates [containing] food that had been 24 exposed to human feces [and] sewer water.” Plaintiff asserts he and the other 71 inmates2 25 “were instructed to line up for breakfast in the sewer water to receive [their] meal,” and “a 26

27 2 While a non-attorney may represent himself, he has no authority to appear as an attorney for another. C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. U.S., 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). 28 Thus, Plaintiff cannot seek relief on behalf of the other detainees to the extent that he may be attempting to do so.

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

Related

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)
Koramba Farmers & Graziers No. 1 v. Commissioner
177 F.3d 14 (D.C. Circuit, 1999)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Taylor v. List
880 F.2d 1040 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
Carol Van Strum Paul E. Merrell v. John C. Lawn
940 F.2d 406 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)
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)
Martinez v. Maricopa, County of, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-maricopa-county-of-azd-2025.