McClure v. Citrenbaum

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedOctober 6, 2023
Docket3:23-cv-08133
StatusUnknown

This text of McClure v. Citrenbaum (McClure v. Citrenbaum) 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
McClure v. Citrenbaum, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Opinion

1 KM 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 John Patrick McClure, No. CV-23-08133-PCT-JAT (ASB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Lewis Citrenbaum, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pro se Plaintiff John Patrick McClure has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 16 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), an Application to Proceed In District Court without Prepaying 17 Fees or Costs (Doc. 2), a Motion for Status (Doc. 5), and two Notices. The Court will grant 18 the Application to Proceed, dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend, and grant the 19 Motion for Status to the extent this Order informs Plaintiff of the status of this case. 20 I. Application to Proceed 21 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without 22 Prepaying Fees or Costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff may proceed without payment of 23 the filing fee. 24 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 25 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to review complaints 26 brought by all plaintiffs who are proceeding in forma pauperis and must dismiss a 27 complaint or portion thereof if the plaintiff has raised claims that are legally frivolous or 28 malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief 1 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 2 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 3 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 4 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 5 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 6 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 7 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 8 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 9 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 10 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 11 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 12 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 13 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 14 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 15 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 16 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 17 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 18 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 19 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 20 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 21 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 22 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 23 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 24 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 25 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 26 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 III. Complaint 2 Plaintiff names Yavapai County Attorney Lewis Citrenbaum, Private Parties Eric 3 Joseph Cremona and Unknown Roommate, and Prescott Valley Police Department 4 Officers Detective Hohrien and Sergeant Grant. Plaintiff seeks money damages. 5 Plaintiff claims he “made contact” with his neighbors, Defendants Cremona and 6 Unknown Roommate, regarding their loud music and Defendants “got in [his] face” and 7 told him they could play their music as loud as they wanted. Plaintiff claims Defendant 8 Cremona threatened him and the Unknown Roommate said “its not time for that, yet.” 9 Plaintiff noticed people “moving around the driveway of 4537, directly across the street,” 10 and contends “this was a set up.” He alleges Cremona addressed him by his first name, 11 even though Plaintiff had never seen him or met him. Plaintiff claims that the next 12 morning, his window “was blown out . . . all with very large rocks and marble size 13 boulders.” Plaintiff claims the music continued to be very loud every weekend. On May 14 15, 2023, Plaintiff went to talk to Defendant Cremona and Cremona “pulled a knife and 15 tried to cut [Plaintiff’s] throat.” Plaintiff alleges the knife cut him from his neck, across 16 his chest, and down the inside of his right arm, almost to hist wrist.” Plaintiff also severely 17 injured his back while trying to get away. 18 Plaintiff alleges that after he was released from the hospital, the Prescott Valley 19 Police Department refused to arrest Cremona or give Plaintiff a police report. Plaintiff 20 called Defendant Hohrien, but Hohrien initially refused to return Plaintiff’s call. Plaintiff 21 then called Defendant Grant, after which Hohrien returned Plaintiff’s call but refused to 22 give Plaintiff Defendant Cremona’s name or arrest Cremona. Plaintiff alleges Defendant 23 Grant also refused to give Plaintiff “[his] attackers[’] name or any kind of report.” 24 Two weeks later, Plaintiff received “victim’s right paperwork” in the mail with 25 Cremona’s name. On July 12, 2023, Plaintiff had a phone conference with Defendant 26 Citrenbaum. Plaintiff told Citrenbaum he was elderly and was attacked with a deadly 27 weapon by Cremona and “Cremona may be an informant with his roommate to set 28 [Plaintiff] up for an attack to cause serious injury or death.” Plaintiff claims Citrenbaum 1 “didn’t want to hear it” and told Plaintiff that Plaintiff might be charged with assault “as 2 he has pictures [and] a witness.” Plaintiff “took this as a direct threat” and ended the phone 3 call. 4 Plaintiff contends “Yavapai County has clearly refused the victim of due process 5 withholding names and protecting the suspect, putting the Plaintiff[’s] PTSD in a serious 6 line of treatment for many years to come.” 7 IV. Failure to State a Claim 8 A. Defendants Cremona and Unknown Roommate 9 “Like the state-action requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment, the under-color- 10 of-state-law element of § 1983 excludes from its reach ‘merely private conduct, no matter 11 how discriminatory or wrongful.’” Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 12 (1999) (quoting Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1002 (1982)). “[S]tate action requires 13 both an alleged constitutional deprivation ‘caused by the exercise of some right or privilege 14 created by the State or by a rule of conduct imposed by the State or by a person for whom 15 the State is responsible,’ and that ‘the party charged with the deprivation must be a person 16 who may fairly be said to be a state actor.’” Id. (quoting Lugar v.

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

Related

Green v. Biddle
21 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1823)
Imbler v. Pachtman
424 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Leeke v. Timmerman
454 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Blum v. Yaretsky
457 U.S. 991 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons
509 U.S. 259 (Supreme Court, 1993)
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)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Michael Andrew Hunter
19 F.3d 895 (Fourth Circuit, 1994)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Collins v. Womancare
878 F.2d 1145 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
McClure v. Citrenbaum, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclure-v-citrenbaum-azd-2023.