Porter v. Giaquinto

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedAugust 21, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-01364
StatusUnknown

This text of Porter v. Giaquinto (Porter v. Giaquinto) 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
Porter v. Giaquinto, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 KM 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Brad Elliout Porter, No. CV-24-01364-PHX-JAT (ASB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Laura J. Giaquinto, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Self-represented Plaintiff Brad Elliout Porter, who is confined in a Maricopa County 16 Jail, has filed a civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an 17 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint 18 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 $6.73. The remainder of 23 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 [self-represented litigant’s] filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 25 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a self-represented prisoner] 26 ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. 27 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 28 1 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 2 facts, a self-represented litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before 3 dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 4 banc). The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because 5 it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 In his three-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Maricopa County Superior Court 8 Judicial Commissioner Laura J. Giaquinto, the Inmate Legal Services (ILS) Coordinator, 9 and the Lower Buckeye Jail Grievance Coordinator. Plaintiff seeks money damages. 10 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges violations of his due process rights. Plaintiff claims 11 that on April 17, 2024, Defendant Giaquinto declared Plaintiff a self-represented criminal 12 defendant, removed Plaintiff’s counsel from his criminal case, and appointed the Office of 13 Public Defender Services as advisory counsel “without specifying if OPDS should appoint 14 new advisory [counsel].” Plaintiff claims this “places a burden on whom [he] would ask 15 for the necessary questions [he needs] answered before submitting motions or asking for 16 minute entries.” Plaintiff further claims Defendant Giaquinto delayed in updating the 17 system to remove Plaintiff’s counsel until April 29, 2024, meaning Plaintiff had only one 18 day to prepare motions that were due on May 1, 2024. Plaintiff claims Defendant 19 Giaquinto “forced a default.” 20 In Count Two, Plaintiff claims Defendant ILS Coordinator “has been continuously 21 late processing documents and abusing [their] discretion as to which documents are correct 22 or incorrect submittals.” Plaintiff claims ILS “can be very finicky . . . and confusing [for] 23 inmates needing legal information, supplies, research or assistance.” Plaintiff contends 24 “this causes many error and default judgments, making it very hard for justice to be 25 served.” As his injury, Plaintiff states, “default judgment entered because delay in 26 processing documents/motions” and “high anxiety, lack of sleep, mild depression, 27 experiencing very high mental health issues.” 28 1 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Grievance Coordinator has denied his 2 due process rights by failing to properly process grievances. Plaintiff states he has two 3 unanswered paper grievances and three grievances on his tablet “that got closed even when 4 [he] escalated them.” He claims one grievance did not receive a response for 30 to 45 days, 5 and one has been pending since March. Plaintiff asserts detention officers walk past his 6 forms “for days” and some refuse to give their badge numbers. Plaintiff contends this 7 “makes this very unsafe, makes it hard to ask for help or get understanding on an issue.” 8 IV. Failure to State a Claim 9 A. Count One 10 First, Defendant Giaquinto is absolutely immune from suit under § 1983. Judges 11 are immune except for acts not taken in their judicial capacity or taken in the absence of 12 all jurisdiction. Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2006); Harvey v. 13 Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1012 (9th Cir. 2000). Immunity attaches even if the act was 14 erroneous or injurious, and irrespective of the judge’s motivation, Harvey, 210 F.3d at 1012 15 (citing Cleavinger v. Saxner,

Related

Younger v. Harris
401 U.S. 37 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Cleavinger v. Saxner
474 U.S. 193 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 2007)
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)
Rhodes v. Robinson
408 F.3d 559 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Flournoy v. Fairman
897 F. Supp. 350 (N.D. Illinois, 1995)
Spencer v. Moore
638 F. Supp. 315 (E.D. Missouri, 1986)
Baltoski v. Pretorius
291 F. Supp. 2d 807 (N.D. Indiana, 2003)
Ashann-Ra v. Com. of Va.
112 F. Supp. 2d 559 (W.D. Virginia, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Porter v. Giaquinto, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-giaquinto-azd-2024.