Myers v. Shepherd

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedFebruary 5, 2021
Docket2:20-cv-02248
StatusUnknown

This text of Myers v. Shepherd (Myers v. Shepherd) 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
Myers v. Shepherd, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Opinion

1 WO ASH 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Kenneth James Myers, No. CV 20-02248-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 J. Adam Shepherd, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Kenneth James Myers, who is confined in the Gila County Jail, has filed a 16 pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), two Applications to 17 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docs. 2 and 5), and a “Motion to Enter Exhibits” (Doc. 4). 18 The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend and deny the Motion.1 19 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 20 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 21 (Doc. 5). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff’s first Application to Proceed (Doc. 2) is 22 incomplete, and will be denied. Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 23 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $60.80. The 24 remainder of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s 25 income credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds 26

27 1 In his “Motion to Enter Exhibits,” Plaintiff seeks to “enter” certain exhibits in 28 support of his claims. The Instructions for completing the court-approved form complaint explicitly state that a plaintiff should not submit exhibits. Accordingly, this motion will be denied. 1 $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the 2 appropriate government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory 3 formula. 4 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 5 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 6 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 7 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 8 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 9 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 10 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 11 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 12 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 13 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 14 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 15 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 16 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 17 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 18 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 19 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 20 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 21 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 22 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 23 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 24 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 25 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 26 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 27 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 28 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 1 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 2 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 3 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 4 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 5 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 6 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 7 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 8 III. Complaint 9 In his three-count Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants: Gila County Sheriff J. 10 Adam Shepherd; Gila County Jail Commander Justin Solberg; and Gila County Jail 11 Lieutenants Erick Kenney and Jared Osborn. Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief. 12 Plaintiff styles Count One as related to “attorney client privilege.” Plaintiff alleges 13 that jail policy does not permit him to make outgoing calls to his lawyer that are not 14 recorded. Rather, only incoming calls from attorneys are not recorded. Plaintiff alleges 15 that he has been denied the ability to make unrecorded calls to his lawyer since August 16 2019. 17 Plaintiff styles Count Two as related to mail. Plaintiff alleges that the mail was not 18 picked up on November 13 and 16, 2020. Plaintiff asserts that the mail “should be picked 19 up … every Monday through Friday,” and that the “haphazard” way in which it is picked 20 up has caused him to “miss deadlines” in his underlying state criminal case. 21 Plaintiff styles Count Three as related to basic necessities. Plaintiff alleges that the 22 grievance process in the Gila County Jail is “broken,” that he is unable “to grieve higher 23 than a grievance s[ergeant] or to appeal,” resulting in “untimely filing.” 24 IV. Failure to State a Claim 25 To prevail in a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendants 26 (2) under color of state law (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and 27 (4) caused him damage. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 28 2005) (quoting Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278, 1 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)). In addition, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury 2 as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant and he must allege an affirmative link 3 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371- 4 72, 377 (1976). 5 A. Count One 6 The attorney-client privilege protects disclosure of communications between a party 7 and his or her attorney. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981). The purpose 8 of the privilege is “to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their 9 clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and 10 administration of justice.” Id. at 389.

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

Related

Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Upjohn Co. v. United States
449 U.S. 383 (Supreme Court, 1981)
Turner v. Safley
482 U.S. 78 (Supreme Court, 1987)
City of Dallas v. Stanglin
490 U.S. 19 (Supreme Court, 1989)
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)
John Witherow v. Marvin Paff
52 F.3d 264 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
Flournoy v. Fairman
897 F. Supp. 350 (N.D. Illinois, 1995)
United States v. Reinhold
20 F. Supp. 2d 541 (S.D. New York, 1998)
Baltoski v. Pretorius
291 F. Supp. 2d 807 (N.D. Indiana, 2003)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Myers v. Shepherd, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myers-v-shepherd-azd-2021.