Ramirez v. Penzone

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedAugust 16, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-01215
StatusUnknown

This text of Ramirez v. Penzone (Ramirez 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
Ramirez v. Penzone, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Opinion

1 MDR 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Linda Ramirez, No. CV-23-01215-PHX-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Paul Penzone, 13 Defendant.

15 Pro se Plaintiff Linda Ramirez, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, filed a 16 civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed 17 In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed and will 18 dismiss the Complaint 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 $6.53. 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 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 . . . . 1 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 2 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 3 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 4 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 5 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 In her one-count Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from Defendant 8 Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone. Plaintiff alleges she has been denied her Eighth 9 Amendment rights due to “health & safety negligence.” She claims she has been subjected 10 to “inadequate housing” because she is housed in a building that has been condemned since 11 2017 and is “full of black mold and a[s]bestos.” 12 Plaintiff asserts “fines are paid on the faulty real estate and the truth is swept under 13 the rug,” but the Estrella Jail “continues to house female prisoners.” She contends there is 14 asbestos in the “popped up ceilings,” “[a]ll pipes that are exposed with a[s]bestos,” the 15 vents have “clear black mold so[o]t around them,” and black mold grows in the shower 16 stalls and drinking water and around the baseboards. She also asserts “rats [are] tracking 17 through the slop that is served to all inmates” and the health department orders kitchen 18 workers to “keep the feces swept up and off of the conveyor belts.” 19 Plaintiff alleges there is a “[c]onspiracy to deprive constitutional rights of inmates.” 20 She claims she has suffered “emotional [and] mental tort.” 21 IV. Failure to State a Claim 22 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 23 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 24 v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal interpretation of a 25 civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 26 pled. Id. 27 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a 28 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 1 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 2 371-72, 377 (1976). There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and therefore, 3 a defendant’s position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s 4 constitutional rights does not impose liability. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 5 (1978); Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 1992); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 6 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, 7 a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own 8 individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676.

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)
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)
Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell
981 F.2d 1062 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ramirez v. Penzone, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-penzone-azd-2023.