Rivera v. Sheppard

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedAugust 28, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-01255
StatusUnknown

This text of Rivera v. Sheppard (Rivera v. Sheppard) 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
Rivera v. Sheppard, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Benny G. Rivera, No. CV 20-01255-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 J. Adam Sheppard, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On June 24, 2020, Plaintiff Benny G. Rivera, who is confined in the Gila County 16 Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an 17 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a July 1, 2020 Order, the Court denied the 18 deficient Application to Proceed and gave Plaintiff thirty days to either pay the 19 administrative and filing fees or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 20 On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 21 In an August 3, 2020 Order, the Court denied the deficient Application to Proceed and gave 22 Plaintiff thirty days to either pay the administrative and filing fees or file a complete 23 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 24 On August 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed a third Application to Proceed In Forma 25 Pauperis (Doc. 7). The Court will grant the third Application to Proceed and will dismiss 26 the Complaint with leave to amend. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 I. Third Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 2 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s third Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 3 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $33.67. The remainder 5 of the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 6 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 7 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 8 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 9 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 10 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 11 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 12 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 13 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 14 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 15 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 16 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 17 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 18 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 19 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 20 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 21 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 22 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 23 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 24 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 25 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 26 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 27 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 28 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 1 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 2 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 3 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 4 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 5 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 6 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 7 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 8 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 9 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 10 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 11 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 12 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 13 III. Complaint 14 In his three-count Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants Gila County Sheriff J. 15 Adam Sheppard, Jail Commander Justin Solberg, and Lieutenants Osborn and Kenney. In 16 his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks access to the courts, transfer to a facility that will 17 provide him with medical care and will accommodate his needs, and monetary damages. 18 In Count One, Plaintiff raises a claim under the Americans with Disabilities 19 Act (ADA), asserting that “Gila County has no handicapp[ed] rooms or showers” and this 20 limits his ability to “move about” and prevents him from showering. In Count Two, 21 Plaintiff contends he is being denied access to the courts because he has not seen an 22 attorney in over ninety days and “memor[ie]s are fading and evidence is being lost.”1 In 23 Count Three, Plaintiff raises a claim under the ADA, asserting that he was on “pain 24 management and it was denied at [the] Gila County Jail,” which is causing him constant 25 pain. 26 . . . .

27 1 It is unclear whether Plaintiff is claiming he has not seen an attorney regarding the 28 criminal charges pending against him or the civil case discussed in the attachment to his Complaint. 1 IV. Failure to State a Claim 2 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 3 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey 4 v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal interpretation of a 5 civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 6 pled. Id. 7 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a 8 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 9 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 10 371-72, 377 (1976). There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and therefore, 11 a defendant’s position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s 12 constitutional rights does not impose liability. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.

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

Related

United States v. Hooe Et Al.
7 U.S. 73 (Supreme Court, 1805)
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)
Lewis v. Casey
518 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court, 1996)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz.
609 F.3d 1011 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
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)
Richard McGary v. City of Portland
386 F.3d 1259 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rivera v. Sheppard, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-sheppard-azd-2020.