1 WO MH 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Rodgerick T. Shears, No. CV-25-03642-PHX-SHD (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Arizona Department of Corrections, et 13 al., 14 Defendants.
15 16 Plaintiff Rodgerick T. Shears, who is not confined, has filed a pro se Complaint 17 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4). The Court will dismiss 18 this action. 19 I. Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs 20 Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs 21 indicates that he qualifies for in forma pauperis status. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court 22 will therefore grant the Application and permit Plaintiff to proceed without payment of the 23 filing fee. 24 II. Statutory Screening of In Forma Pauperis Complaints 25 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to review complaints 26 brought by all plaintiffs who are proceeding in forma pauperis and must dismiss a 27 complaint or portion thereof if the plaintiff has raised claims that are legally frivolous or 28 1 malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief 2 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 3 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 4 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 5 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 6 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 7 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 8 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 9 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 10 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 11 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 12 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 13 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 14 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 15 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 16 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 17 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 18 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 19 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 20 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se plaintiff] ‘must be held to less stringent 21 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 22 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 23 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 24 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 25 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 26 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend 27 because the defects cannot be corrected. 28 . . . . 1 III. Complaint 2 Plaintiff names the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry 3 (ADC) and former ADC Director Charles Ryan as Defendants in his one-count Complaint. 4 Plaintiff alleges that while he was incarcerated in an ADC prison from 2023 to 2025, he 5 worked for a private company that contracted with ADC through Arizona Correction 6 Industries. Plaintiff claims Defendants “unlawfully and without proper legislative 7 authority,” took $2,613 from his earnings “under the guise of ‘room and board.’” He 8 asserts that Arizona Revised Statutes section 31-261 “[s]tates the legislature appropriates 9 funds to maintain prisoners” and further claims that under Arizona Revised Statutes section 10 35-101(13), ADC is “beyond its scope to encumber any inmate monies not court ordered, 11 o[r] legislative.” For relief, Plaintiff seeks court fees and costs, money damages, and a 12 permanent injunction. 13 IV. Lack of Jurisdiction 14 Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and limitations on the court’s jurisdiction 15 must neither be disregarded nor evaded. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 16 365, 374 (1978). The Court is obligated to determine sua sponte whether it has subject- 17 matter jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). 18 See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject- 19 matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of 20 Civil Procedure requires that “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a 21 short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . .” In order to 22 proceed in federal court, Plaintiff must demonstrate some right of action and legal 23 entitlement to the damages he seeks. 24 Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction is proper because the ADC is “an agency of the State of 25 Arizona.” However, under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United 26 States, a state or state agency may not be sued in federal court without its consent. 27 Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Taylor v. List, 880 28 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 1 Further, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “the district courts shall have original jurisdiction 2 of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 3 Plaintiff only alleges violations of state law and the Court therefore lacks federal question 4 jurisdiction under § 1331. Additionally, Plaintiff’s allegations do not support diversity 5 jurisdiction because Plaintiff and Defendants are not citizens of different states and the 6 amount in controversy is less than $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 7 Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Complaint and this action for lack of 8 jurisdiction.1 9 IT IS ORDERED: 10 (1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees 11 or Costs (Doc. 4) is granted; Plaintiff is not required to pay the filing fee. 12 (2) The Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice for lack of 13 jurisdiction and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 14 . . . . 15 . . . . 16 . . . . 17 . . . . 18 . . . . 19 . . . . 20 . . . .
21 1 The Court notes that even if Plaintiff had alleged a violation of the United States 22 Constitution, he still has not stated a claim. “Courts have consistently found that there is no constitutional impediment to deducting the cost of room and board from a prisoner’s 23 wages.” Tillman v. Lebanon County Corr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 WO MH 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Rodgerick T. Shears, No. CV-25-03642-PHX-SHD (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Arizona Department of Corrections, et 13 al., 14 Defendants.
15 16 Plaintiff Rodgerick T. Shears, who is not confined, has filed a pro se Complaint 17 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4). The Court will dismiss 18 this action. 19 I. Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs 20 Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs 21 indicates that he qualifies for in forma pauperis status. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court 22 will therefore grant the Application and permit Plaintiff to proceed without payment of the 23 filing fee. 24 II. Statutory Screening of In Forma Pauperis Complaints 25 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to review complaints 26 brought by all plaintiffs who are proceeding in forma pauperis and must dismiss a 27 complaint or portion thereof if the plaintiff has raised claims that are legally frivolous or 28 1 malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief 2 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 3 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 4 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 5 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 6 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 7 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 8 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 9 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 10 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 11 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 12 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 13 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 14 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 15 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 16 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 17 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 18 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 19 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 20 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se plaintiff] ‘must be held to less stringent 21 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 22 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 23 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 24 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 25 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 26 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend 27 because the defects cannot be corrected. 28 . . . . 1 III. Complaint 2 Plaintiff names the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry 3 (ADC) and former ADC Director Charles Ryan as Defendants in his one-count Complaint. 4 Plaintiff alleges that while he was incarcerated in an ADC prison from 2023 to 2025, he 5 worked for a private company that contracted with ADC through Arizona Correction 6 Industries. Plaintiff claims Defendants “unlawfully and without proper legislative 7 authority,” took $2,613 from his earnings “under the guise of ‘room and board.’” He 8 asserts that Arizona Revised Statutes section 31-261 “[s]tates the legislature appropriates 9 funds to maintain prisoners” and further claims that under Arizona Revised Statutes section 10 35-101(13), ADC is “beyond its scope to encumber any inmate monies not court ordered, 11 o[r] legislative.” For relief, Plaintiff seeks court fees and costs, money damages, and a 12 permanent injunction. 13 IV. Lack of Jurisdiction 14 Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and limitations on the court’s jurisdiction 15 must neither be disregarded nor evaded. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 16 365, 374 (1978). The Court is obligated to determine sua sponte whether it has subject- 17 matter jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). 18 See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject- 19 matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of 20 Civil Procedure requires that “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a 21 short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . .” In order to 22 proceed in federal court, Plaintiff must demonstrate some right of action and legal 23 entitlement to the damages he seeks. 24 Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction is proper because the ADC is “an agency of the State of 25 Arizona.” However, under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United 26 States, a state or state agency may not be sued in federal court without its consent. 27 Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Taylor v. List, 880 28 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 1 Further, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “the district courts shall have original jurisdiction 2 of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 3 Plaintiff only alleges violations of state law and the Court therefore lacks federal question 4 jurisdiction under § 1331. Additionally, Plaintiff’s allegations do not support diversity 5 jurisdiction because Plaintiff and Defendants are not citizens of different states and the 6 amount in controversy is less than $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 7 Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Complaint and this action for lack of 8 jurisdiction.1 9 IT IS ORDERED: 10 (1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees 11 or Costs (Doc. 4) is granted; Plaintiff is not required to pay the filing fee. 12 (2) The Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice for lack of 13 jurisdiction and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 14 . . . . 15 . . . . 16 . . . . 17 . . . . 18 . . . . 19 . . . . 20 . . . .
21 1 The Court notes that even if Plaintiff had alleged a violation of the United States 22 Constitution, he still has not stated a claim. “Courts have consistently found that there is no constitutional impediment to deducting the cost of room and board from a prisoner’s 23 wages.” Tillman v. Lebanon County Corr. Facility, 221 F.3d 410, 416 (3d. Cir. 2000). Moreover, Plaintiff is mistaken that ADC lacked legislative authority to deduct money 24 from Plaintiff’s earnings for room and board. Arizona Revised Statutes section 31- 254(E)(4) mandates a deduction of “[t]hirty percent of the prisoner’s wages for the room 25 and board costs of maintaining the prisoner at the facility” if the compensation due the prisoner equals or exceeds two dollars per hour. See Ward v. Ryan, 623 F.3d 807, 812 (9th 26 Cir. 2010) (Arizona Revised Statutes section 31-254 “provides for mandatory deductions from inmate wages, not only for the dedicated discharge account, but also for court costs, 27 room and board costs, and court ordered dependent care”) (emphasis added); see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-254(A) (requiring the ADC Director to “prescribe prisoner compensation 28 of at least two dollars per hour” if the ADC Director “enters into a contract . . . with a private person, firm, corporation or association”). 1 (3) | The docket shall reflect that the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) 2| and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), has considered whether an appeal ofthis decision would be taken in good faith and certifies that an appeal would not be taken 4| in good faith for the reasons stated in the Order and because there is no arguable factual or 5 | legal basis for an appeal. 6 Dated this 15th day of January, 2026. 7 8 / 9
H le Sharad H. Desai 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28