Miller v. Penzone

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedOctober 6, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-01550
StatusUnknown

This text of Miller v. Penzone (Miller v. Penzone) 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
Miller v. Penzone, (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 Emily Ann Miller, No. CV-23-01550-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Paul Penzone, 13 Defendant.

14 15 On August 2, 2023, pro se Plaintiff Emily Ann Miller, who is confined in a Maricopa 16 County Jail, filed a civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma 17 Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 18 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 19 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $7.26. Id. The statutory 22 filing fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 23 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 24 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 25 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 26 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 27 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 28 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 1 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 2 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 3 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 4 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 5 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 6 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 7 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 8 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 9 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 10 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 11 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 12 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 13 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 14 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 15 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 16 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 17 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 18 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 19 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 20 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 21 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 22 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 23 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 24 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 25 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 26 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 27 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 28 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 2 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 3 III. Complaint 4 In her one-count Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from Defendant Paul 5 Penzone. Plaintiff alleges she is housed in a building that has been condemned since 2017 6 because of black mold and asbestos, and that “fines are paid on the facility . . . and the truth 7 is swept under the rug.” She further asserts there are “rats tracking through the slop that is 8 served to all inmates,” and the “Health Department orders inmates working in [the] kitchen 9 to keep the feces swept up and off the conveyor belts.” Plaintiff contends black mold grows 10 in the shower stalls, “in the drinking water, around the baseboards, and asbestos [is] in the 11 popped up ceilings, all vents have clear black mold soot around them.” As her injury, 12 Plaintiff states she suffers “emotional, mental torture.” 13 IV. Failure to State a Claim 14 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 15 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 16 v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a 17 liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the 18 claim that were not initially pled. Id. 19 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a 20 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 21 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 22 371-72, 377 (1976). “A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that 23 an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of [her] civil rights.” Barren v. 24 Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). 25 A pretrial detainee has a right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 26 Amendment to be free from punishment prior to an adjudication of guilt. Bell v. Wolfish, 27 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). “Pretrial detainees are entitled to ‘adequate food, clothing, 28 shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.’” Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 1 107 F.3d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 2 1982)).

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

Related

Brooks v. Marbury
24 U.S. 78 (Supreme Court, 1826)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
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)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
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)
United States v. Reese
2 F.3d 870 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Alvarez-Machain v. United States
107 F.3d 696 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Hoptowit v. Ray
682 F.2d 1237 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Miller v. Penzone, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-penzone-azd-2023.