Rinehart v. Mohave County Adult Detention Facility

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedOctober 26, 2021
Docket3:21-cv-08186
StatusUnknown

This text of Rinehart v. Mohave County Adult Detention Facility (Rinehart v. Mohave County Adult Detention Facility) 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
Rinehart v. Mohave County Adult Detention Facility, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Opinion

1 WO KM 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Timothy Wayne Rinehart, No. CV 21-08186-PCT-JAT (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Mohave County Adult Detention Center, 13 et al., 14 Defendants.

15 On August 18, 2021, Plaintiff Timothy Wayne Rinehart, who is confined in the 16 Mohave County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an incomplete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an 18 August 31, 2021 Order, the Court denied the Application to Proceed with leave to refile. 19 On September 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed a new Application to Proceed In Forma 20 Pauperis (Doc. 5). The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 21 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 22 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 23 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $7.90. The remainder of 25 the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 26 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 27 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 28 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 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 Plaintiff names the Mohave County Adult Detention Facility, Nurse Practitioner 8 Jane, and Officer Farver as Defendants in his one-count Complaint. Plaintiff seeks 9 injunctive relief and money damages. 10 Plaintiff alleges he is denied medical care because he is homosexual. Plaintiff 11 claims Defendant Mohave County Adult Detention Facility refused to provide Plaintiff 12 with his “HIV/AIDS medical support to maintain [his] Cd4 T-cell count and viral loads by 13 refusing to keep [his] Biktarvy in a constant supply which is prescribed by [Plaintiff’s] 14 infectious disease doctor to be taken daily at the same time.” Plaintiff claims he is not 15 being “given [his] daily Ensure Plus at all.” Plaintiff further asserts he is not provided most 16 of his mental health medications for bi-polar disorder, PTSD, ADHD, ADD, anxiety, and 17 depression. Plaintiff states he has been “violently ill for the entire time [he has] been [at 18 the jail] for 10 weeks.” Plaintiff claims he has “told the nursing staff twice daily during 19 medication pass and constantly to the CO’s.” 20 IV. Failure to State a Claim 21 A. Mohave County Adult Detention Facility 22 Section 1983 imposes liability on any “person” who violates an individual’s federal 23 rights while acting under color of state law. Congress intended municipalities and other 24 local government units to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies. 25 Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 689-90 (1978). However, the Mohave County 26 Adult Detention Facility is a building or collection of buildings, not a person or legally 27 created entity capable of being sued. Thus, the Court will dismiss Defendant Mohave 28 County Adult Detention Facility. 1 B. Defendants Jane and Farver 2 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a 3 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 4 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 5 371-72, 377 (1976). Plaintiff makes no factual allegations regarding Defendants Jane and 6 Farver and therefore fails to state a claim against them. 7 V. Leave to Amend 8 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state 9 a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first 10 amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail 11 Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first amended complaint.

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)
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)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1989)
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)
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)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Karraker v. Ernest
4 F.2d 404 (E.D. Illinois, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rinehart v. Mohave County Adult Detention Facility, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rinehart-v-mohave-county-adult-detention-facility-azd-2021.