Paul-Thorit Agneberg v. Yavapai County Board of Supervisors, et al.

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided July 28, 2026·No. 3:25-cv-08204·Unknown

Opinion

1 BGN 2 WO 3 4 5 8 9 Paul-Thorit Agneberg, No. CV-25-08204-PCT-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Yavapai County Board of Supervisors, et al., 13 14 Defendants.

15 On September 29, 2025, Plaintiff Paul-Thorit Agneberg filed a pro se civil rights 16 Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 17 Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on November 24, 2025 (Doc. 5).1 On December 18 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address indicating he was no longer in 19 custody and a Motion to Allow Electronic Filing by a Party Appearing Without an Attorney 20 (Doc. 9). The following day, the Court denied Plaintiff’s deficient Application to Proceed 21 and gave Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the filing and administrative fees or file a complete 22 Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 7.) Thereafter, on January 15, 2026, 23 Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs 24 (Doc. 12) and a subsequent Motion to Allow Electronic Filing (Doc. 13). 25 26 27

28 1 The Court will treat Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint as the operative complaint. 1 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed and initial Motion to Allow 2 Electronic Filing; deny as moot the subsequent Motion to Allow Electronic Filing; and 3 dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 4 I. Application to Proceed In District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs 5 In his Application to Proceed, Plaintiff indicates he has insufficient funds to pay the 6 filing fee for this action. (Doc. 12.) The Court, in its discretion, will grant Plaintiff’s 7 Application to Proceed. Plaintiff will not be required to pay the filing fee for this action. 8 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 9 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 10 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 11 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 12 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 13 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 14 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 15 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 16 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 17 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 18 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 19 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 20 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 21 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 22 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 23 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 24 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 25 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 26 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 27 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 28 1 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 2 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 3 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 4 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 5 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 6 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 7 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 8 If the Court determines a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a 9 self-represented litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 10 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 11 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because it may 12 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 13 III. First Amended Complaint 14 Plaintiff’s five-count First Amended Complaint raises alleged violations of the Fifth 15 and Eighth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 that occurred 16 while he was detained at the Camp Verde Detention Center. Plaintiff names the Yavapai 17 County Board of Supervisors and Yavapai County Sheriff David Rhodes as Defendants. 18 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive2 relief. 19 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment due to denial 20 of outdoor recreation time. Plaintiff states that during his two-month detention, he was 21 “taken to outdoor rec yard 7 or 8 times for approximately half-an-hour each time. That is 22 the equivalent of less than 4-hours in 2 months. . . .” (Doc. 5 at 4.) Plaintiff alleges he 23 filed “a grievance and 3 appeals” and that since the “resolution of [his] grievance on 24 [September 8, 2025], . . . [Plaintiff] has been outdoors 4 times, totaling less than 2-hours 25 in 3 weeks. . . .” (Id. at 5.) According to Plaintiff, during his four-month detention, he has 26 been “outside for recreation time less than 10 times or less than 5 hours total. . . .” (Id.)

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

Paul-Thorit Agneberg v. Yavapai County Board of Supervisors, et al., (D. Ariz. 2026).

Paul-Thorit Agneberg v. Yavapai County Board of Supervisors, et al. (Paul-Thorit Agneberg v. Yavapai County Board of Supervisors, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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)
O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz
482 U.S. 342 (Supreme Court, 1987)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
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)
Buckley v. Barlow
997 F.2d 494 (Eighth Circuit, 1993)
Dawud Halisi Malik v. Neal Brown
16 F.3d 330 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
People of Guam v. Benny Toves Guerrero
290 F.3d 1210 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Rhodes v. Robinson
408 F.3d 559 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Warsoldier v. Woodford
418 F.3d 989 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)