Mullis v. Penzone

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedDecember 21, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-01806
StatusUnknown

This text of Mullis v. Penzone (Mullis 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
Mullis v. Penzone, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Opinion

1 MDR 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Darby Mullis, No. CV-23-01806-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Paul Penzone, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 While confined in a Maricopa County Jail, self-represented Plaintiff Darby Mullis 16 filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to 17 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). Plaintiff subsequently filed a Notice of Change of 18 Address. 19 Because Plaintiff listed a street address in her Notice of Change of Address and did 20 not indicate the address was that of a prison, the Court assumed Plaintiff was no longer in 21 custody and issued a November 11, 2023 Order denying as moot the Application to Proceed 22 In Forma Pauperis and giving Plaintiff an opportunity to either pay the filing and 23 administrative fees or file a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis. 24 However, the address Plaintiff provided was the street address for the Arizona State Prison 25 Complex-Perryville. 26 On December 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed in District Court 27 Without Prepaying Fees and Costs (Doc. 8). She indicates she is incarcerated in the 28 custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry. 1 Because Plaintiff has always been in custody, the Court will vacate the November 2 9, 2023 Order. The Court will grant the original Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, 3 deny as moot the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees and 4 Costs, and dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 5 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 6 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 7 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 8 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $6.00. The remainder of 9 the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 10 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 11 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 12 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 13 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 14 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 15 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 16 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 17 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 18 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 19 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 20 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 21 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 22 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 23 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 24 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 25 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 26 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 27 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 28 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 1 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 2 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 3 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 4 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 5 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 6 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 7 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 8 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 9 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 10 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 11 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 12 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 13 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 14 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 15 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 16 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 17 III. Complaint 18 In her one-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone 19 and Maricopa County Supervisor Clint Hickman. She raises an Eighth Amendment claim 20 and seeks monetary damages for her “[e]motional, physical; mental; tort” injury. 21 Plaintiff contends “the responsibility [for] operating jails” is placed on Defendant 22 Penzone. She alleges Defendant Penzone, “with the help of [the] Maricopa County Board 23 of Supervisors,” is “very much aware of facts that a substantial risk of serious harm exists 24 [from] housing [female] inmates in build[ing]s that have been condemned with black mold 25 spores.” Plaintiff claims black mold grows on the baseboards and shower stalls and “the 26 facility” blames headaches and flu-like symptoms on COVID-19. She also asserts 27 Defendant Hickman has been funding this “death camp” because the jail has “been 28 1 condemned since 2017” and “funds are paid to keep [the] building overfilled with [female] 2 inmates.” 3 IV. Failure to State a Claim 4 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 5 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 6 v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal interpretation of a 7 civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 8 pled. Id. 9 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a 10 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 11 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 12 371-72, 377 (1976).

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

Related

Russell v. Clark's Executors
11 U.S. 69 (Supreme Court, 1812)
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)
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)
Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell
981 F.2d 1062 (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)
Alvarez-Machain v. United States
107 F.3d 696 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

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