Peterson v. Penzone

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 4, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-02067
StatusUnknown

This text of Peterson v. Penzone (Peterson 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
Peterson v. Penzone, (D. Ariz. 2022).

Opinion

1 WO JL 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Ashley Peterson, No. CV 21-02067-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Paul Penzone, 13 Defendant.

14 15 Plaintiff Ashley Peterson, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, has filed a pro 16 se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to 17 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3). The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to 18 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 $12.51. 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 claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 7 such 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 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 1 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 2 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 3 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 4 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 5 III. Complaint 6 In her Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary relief from Maricopa County Sheriff 7 Paul Penzone. Plaintiff alleges that on October 21, 2021, she was placed in a Maricopa 8 County Jail. She asserts there is black mold “all over” the facility and that she was placed 9 in a dorm where detainees were “coming off of drugs [and] getting sick all over the place 10 (vomit, bleeding),” and other detainees were cleaning up. Plaintiff claims she tested 11 positive for COVID-19 at the Jail and was placed in a holding cell. She alleges that every 12 couple of day, “they” brought more sick detainees in. Plaintiff asserts that before she went 13 to the Jail, she did not have COVID-19 and had been vaccinated. 14 IV. Failure to State a Claim 15 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a 16 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 17 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 18 371-72, 377 (1976). “A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that 19 an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of [her] civil rights.” Barren v. 20 Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). 21 A pretrial detainee has a right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 22 Amendment to be free from punishment prior to an adjudication of guilt. Bell v. Wolfish, 23 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). “Pretrial detainees are entitled to ‘adequate food, clothing, 24 shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.’” Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 25 107 F.3d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 26 1982)). To state a claim of unconstitutional conditions of confinement against an 27 individual defendant, a pretrial detainee must allege facts that show: 28 (i) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (ii) those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of 1 suffering serious harm; (iii) the defendant did not take 2 reasonable available measures to abate that risk, even though a reasonable official in the circumstances would have 3 appreciated the high degree of risk involved—making the 4 consequences of the defendant’s conduct obvious; and (iv) by not taking such measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff’s 5 injuries. 6 7 Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018). 8 Whether the conditions and conduct rise to the level of a constitutional violation is 9 an objective assessment that turns on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. 10 Id.; Hearns v.

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)
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)
United States v. Anthony Bruce Cannon
15 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
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)
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)
Peterson v. Penzone, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-penzone-azd-2022.