Moreno v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMarch 20, 2024
Docket4:23-cv-00463
StatusUnknown

This text of Moreno v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (Moreno v. Federal Bureau of Prisons) 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
Moreno v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 WO KM 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Elmer Armando Moreno, No. CV-23-00463-TUC-SHR 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Federal Bureau of Prisons, 13 Defendant.

15 Self-represented Plaintiff Elmer Armando Moreno, who is confined in the United 16 States Penitentiary-Tucson (USP-Tucson), has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 28 17 U.S.C. § 1331 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4). The 18 Court will 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 $11.19. 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 26 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 2 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 3 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 5 has raised legally frivolous or malicious claims, failed to state a claim upon which relief 6 may be granted, or sought monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 8 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 9 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 10 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 11 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 12 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 13 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 14 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 15 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’“ Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 16 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 17 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 18 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 19 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 20 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 21 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 22 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 23 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 24 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 25 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 26 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’“ Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 27 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 28 . . . . 1 If the Court determines a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a 2 pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the 3 action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127–29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff’s 4 Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but, because it may possibly be 5 amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 In his three-count Complaint, Plaintiff names the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 8 as Defendant. He seeks costs and fees and an injunction prohibiting the BOP from 9 retaliating against inmates engaged in protected activities, housing prisoners with mental 10 health symptoms in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) for longer than 14 days, denying 11 inmates Segregation Review Official (SRO) hearings, refusing to investigate retaliation 12 complaints, and requiring Plaintiff have access to a psychiatrist. 13 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges he suffered retaliation, in violation of the First 14 Amendment. Plaintiff claims on April 23, 2023, he was placed in the SHU for a “Special 15 Investigative Services (SIS) Investigation” by Officers Villareal and Rhynard. Plaintiff 16 was interviewed during the investigation and exercised his right to remain silent, even 17 though Villareal and Rhynard told him he would “be kept in SHU for a prolonged period 18 and eventually transferred if he remained silent” but would be immediately returned to the 19 general population if he cooperated. Plaintiff filed a BP-8 to complain of threats by 20 Villareal and Rhynard which prompted Villareal to tell Plaintiff because he “filed that BP- 21 8[,] we’re just gonna keep you in SHU and ship you.” Once the SIS investigation 22 concluded, Villareal and Rhynard recommended Plaintiff “remain in SHU and be 23 transferred[.] Warden Mark Gutierrez then affirmed their recommendation.” 24 According to Plaintiff, “each inmate in SHU is discussed by a multidisciplinary 25 team that, at a minimum, includes institution executive staff, captain, unit staff, health 26 services staff, and psychology staff reviews initial and ongoing placement in SHU each 27 week.” Warden Gutierrez told Plaintiff he would remain in SHU for a “long time and be 28 1 the subject of a transfer.” Plaintiff asked why and Gutierrez allegedly said, “Because I hate 2 when inmates file on my staff.” 3 Plaintiff contends prior to “retaliating against Plaintiff,” Gutierrez and SIS staff 4 were “reported to Special Agent Cramer in Internal Affairs by other USP-Tucson inmates 5 for acts of retaliation that violated the standards of employee conduct,” but the Special 6 Agent “took no steps to hold Gutierrez or the other SIS personnel accountable for the 7 retaliation that was chronic at USP Tucson against any inmates filing complaints on staff.” 8 Plaintiff claims multiple organizations have investigated BOP for a culture of systemic 9 abuse and retaliation. 10 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges violations of his due process rights. He claims, 11 pursuant to BOP policy, a SRO must review the status of each inmate housed in 12 disciplinary segregation and administrative detention. According to Plaintiff, any post- 13 disciplinary detention in the SHU exceeding 90 days requires a recommendation from the 14 Regional Director “for concurrence” and, every 60 days thereafter, the continued detention 15 requires a “recommendation from the Asst. Director in Washington, D.C.

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

Related

Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
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)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Environmental Council of Sacramento v. Slater
184 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (E.D. California, 2000)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Moreno v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moreno-v-federal-bureau-of-prisons-azd-2024.