Reynolds v. Penzone

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedAugust 14, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-01176
StatusUnknown

This text of Reynolds v. Penzone (Reynolds 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
Reynolds 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 Diane Lilleen Reynolds, No. CV-23-01176-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Paul Penzone, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pro se Plaintiff Diane Lilleen Reynolds, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, 16 filed a civil rights Complaint1 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma 17 Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the Application to Proceed and will dismiss the 18 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 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 26 27 1 Plaintiff did not allege a jurisdictional basis for her lawsuit. For purposes of this Order, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s claims as filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 which provides a cause of action against persons acting under color of state law who have violated rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and federal law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F.3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995). 1 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 2 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 3 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 4 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 5 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 7 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 8 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 9 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 10 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 11 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 12 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 13 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 14 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 15 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 16 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 17 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 18 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 19 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 21 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 22 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 23 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 24 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 25 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 26 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 27 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 28 1 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 2 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 3 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 4 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 5 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 6 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 7 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 8 III. Complaint 9 In her one-count Complaint, Plaintiff sue Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff Paul 10 Penzone, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, the Estrella Jail, and CHS Medical 11 Services. She seeks monetary damages and her legal and medical fees. 12 Plaintiff alleges the Maricopa County Jail is a detention facility “under [the] care 13 and control” of Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, “headed by” Defendant 14 Penzone, with Defendant CHS Medical Services “appointed as healthcare professions for 15 these Jails.” She claims she has been housed “in a facility where untreated toxic black 16 mold is present.” 17 Plaintiff asserts the Estrella Jail has been “condemned” since 2015, but it has not 18 been closed or repaired, and “the County continues to house female inmates in a 19 condemned structure causing exposure and medical threat to [her] health [and] safety.” 20 Plaintiff contends “all exposure to toxic black mold is illegal,” she was exposed to “black 21 toxic mold” for 132 days, and “[t]oxic mold is a known cause of perm[a]n[e]nt and fatal 22 health problems, resulting from any contact or exposure exceeding 7 days.” 23 IV. Failure to State a Claim 24 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 25 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 26 v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal interpretation of a 27 civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 28 pled. Id. 1 A. Defendant Estrella Jail 2 Section 1983, 42 U.S.C., imposes liability on any “person” who violates an 3 individual’s federal rights while acting under color of state law. Congress intended 4 municipalities and other local government units to be included among those persons to 5 whom § 1983 applies. Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 689-90 (1978). 6 However, the Estrella Jail is a building or collection of buildings, not a person or legally 7 created entity capable of being sued. Thus, the Court will dismiss Defendant Estrella Jail. 8 B. Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office 9 The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is not a proper defendant because it is a “non- 10 jural entity.” Melendres v.

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)
Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell
981 F.2d 1062 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
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)
Sadoski v. Mosley
435 F.3d 1076 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

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