Pugmire v. Penzone

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedApril 15, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-00297
StatusUnknown

This text of Pugmire v. Penzone (Pugmire 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
Pugmire v. Penzone, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Brittany Pugmire, No. CV-24-00297-PHX-JAT (ASB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Paul Penzone, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Brittany Pugmire, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, has filed a 16 pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to 17 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). 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 not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 23 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 24 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 26 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 27 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 28 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 1 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 3 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 4 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 5 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 6 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 7 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 8 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 9 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 10 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 11 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 12 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 13 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 14 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 15 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 16 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 17 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 18 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 19 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 20 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 21 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 22 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 23 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 24 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 25 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 26 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 27 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 28 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 1 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim, but because it may 2 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 3 III. Complaint 4 In her three-count Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from Defendants 5 former Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office 6 (MCSO), the Estrella Jail, and CHS Medical Services (CHS). 7 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges there is a visible infestation and colonization of toxic 8 black mold in the showers, sinks, drinking water faucets, toilets, and the ventilation system. 9 Plaintiff asserts detainees are given moldy bread and fruit daily. Plaintiff claims toxic mold 10 “holds spores” that are carried in air currents, and those spores are toxic once they are 11 ingested or touched and “poisoning is then started.” Plaintiff contends the jail does not 12 have the appropriate level of health care to test and diagnose black mold poisoning. As her 13 injury, Plaintiff alleges she suffered emotional, physical, and mental injury as well as “long 14 term effects to health.” 15 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1997g. She alleges that 16 MCSO and appropriate authorities have not “made correct use of funds . . . to fix such 17 unconstitutional or illegal conditions which exist.” 18 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1997i, claiming that the 19 “standard[s] of care are not up to the correct standards,” and she has been sick due to 20 extended exposure to black mold. 21 IV. Failure to State a Claim 22 A. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office 23 The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not a proper defendant because it is a “non- 24 jural entity.” Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Braillard 25 v. Maricopa County, 232 P.3d 1263, 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)). In Arizona, the 26 responsibility of operating jails and caring for prisoners is placed by law upon the sheriff. 27 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 11-441(A)(5), 31-101. A sheriff’s office is simply an administrative 28 creation of the county sheriff to allow him to carry out his statutory duties and is not a 1 “person” amenable to suit pursuant to § 1983. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss 2 Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. 3 B. Estrella Jail 4 Section 1983 imposes liability on any “person” who violates an individual’s federal 5 rights while acting under color of state law. Congress intended municipalities and other 6 local government units to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies. 7 Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 689-90 (1978).

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

Related

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)
Gotbaum Ex Rel. Gotbaum v. City of Phoenix
617 F. Supp. 2d 878 (D. Arizona, 2008)
Braillard v. Maricopa County
232 P.3d 1263 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2010)
Manuel Ortega Melendres v. Joseph Arpaio
784 F.3d 1254 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Hearns v. Terhune
413 F.3d 1036 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Pugmire v. Penzone, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pugmire-v-penzone-azd-2024.