Rivera v. Sheppard

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided October 9, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-01255·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 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 and an Application 17 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a July 1, 2020 Order, the Court denied the deficient 18 Application to Proceed and gave Plaintiff thirty days to either pay the administrative and 19 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. In an August 28, 2020 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and 26 dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave 27 Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the 28 Order. 1 On September 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 11). The 2 Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 3 I. 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 First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 7 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 8 to amend. 9 II. First Amended Complaint 10 In his two-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants Gila 11 County Sheriff J. Adam Sheppard, Jail Commander Justin Solberg, and Lieutenants Osborn 12 and Kenny. In each count, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Americans with Disabilities 13 Act (ADA). In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, pain medication, 14 and transfer to an ADA-compliant facility. 15 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges Defendants have denied him access to ADA 16 accommodations. He contends he is “disabled” and under the care of multiple doctors. He 17 asserts that there are no ADA cells in the Gila County Jail and no handicapped accessibility 18 accommodations, such as wheelchair ramps and grab bars in the cells and showers. He 19 claims “the people running th[e] Jail are acting with d[e]l[i]berate indifference to any 20 persons with a disability,” he is “[l]ocked down for asking for [an] ADA cell,” and he has 21 to “wait for others to help [him] up off the floor where [he is] forced to sleep.” 22 In Count Two, he contends Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to 23 his medical conditions “by allowing staff to continu[a]lly punish the Plaintiff.” He claims 24 he was under a doctor’s care and receiving pain management, but “the Jail[,] through these 25 represent[at]ives[,] have made a decision about the Plaintiff and what they think is best for 26 him[,] while not one of these Defendants is a trained medical expert.” He asserts he is in 27 continuous pain because he is being denied medications and is not being allowed to have 28 an ADA-compliant cell, a cane, or a walker. 1 III. 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. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 13 (1978); Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 1992); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 14 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Biv

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

Rivera v. Sheppard, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Rivera v. Sheppard (Rivera v. Sheppard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)
Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz.
609 F.3d 1011 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Diaz-Fonseca v. Commonwealth of PR
451 F.3d 13 (First Circuit, 2006)
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)
United States v. Ricardo Duarte
28 F.3d 47 (Seventh Circuit, 1994)